Saturday, December 26, 2015

Kiko Was Obedient To The Vatican

Someone brought up Father Walsh's letter to Tim Rohr dated April 26, 2008.  An anonymous commenter indicated that Kiko and the NCW ignored the instructions of Pope Benedict through the letter of Cardinal Arinze in December, 2005.  His/Her comment can be found here.
First of all, nowhere in my previous comment did I even mention Cardinal Arinze.  This is one of the problems with the jungle.  They put words in other people's mouths despite that the person never said it.  My previous comment referred to Father Walsh's letter.  According to his letter (the bold is mine): 
Kiko spoke to Cardinal Rylko, the head of the Council for the Laity, back in December when the two year transitional period ran out.  Both Kiko and Cardinal Rylko knew that the statues would contain a modification of Cardinal Arinze's instructions.  Rylko gave an oral reply to Kiko to maintain the present practice so that the Holy See would not be put in the awkward position of seeming to change its mind by going from Arinze's letter to the new statues in a very short time.  The pope approved the statues in the beginning of February and they were to be promulgated on February  27th.  But just before the promulgation, the statues were removed from the hands of the Council of the Laity and sent back for further considerations by the other four  dicasteries of the Curia that have to review any changes in the statues.  We were just told to hold tight until you receive further word.  No explanations were given at the time.  There is, however, evidently still some strong resistance to the statues on the part of some in the Curia and they are trying to introduce further changes.  However, there are no documents to show you at this point.  All our instruction have been oral, but we are satisfied with that.  We have no choice.  All we were told is to take no action until the Holy See resolves these matters.  This is what we are doing. However, I hope you understand that this information is not for publication.  I share it with you so that you will understand the delicate position we are in at the moment.  I would caution against reading into these events more what I have said.  I mention them simply to show that we are not disregarding Arinze's letter, but that subsequent events have changed the situation in which we find ourselves.

Father Walsh wrote the above letter to Tim Rohr before the Statues were approved.  At that time, the NCW received and consumed the Body of Christ sitting down. 
Cardinal Arinze's letter to Kiko in December, 2005 contained some guidelines from Pope Benedict XVI that the NCW was supposed to follow.  In January, 2006, Kiko then wrote a letter to Pope Benedict XVI, thanking him for granting him two more years to adapt to the changes they made in the celebration of the Eucharist.  According to Kiko Arguello (the bold is mine): 
We also wish to thank you for the benevolence, mercy, and goodness You have shown to those farthest away in allowing the moving of the sign of peace and in granting a period of two years for the adaptation of the manner of distributing the Communion of the Body and the Blood of the Lord: we have always shown to the many brothers who have emerged from hell, full of wounds and of self-loathing, that in the Holy Eucharist the Lord makes present his love, dying and rising for them; and not only that, but prepares a table, an eschatological banquet, which makes Heaven present and where He himself, full of love, has them sit down and comes to serve them: “He will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them” (Lk 12:37). 
It is very obvious from Kiko's letter that there was a change in the way the Eucharist would be celebrated because of the fact that he mentioned it. His letter actually acknowledged that there was a change in the Eucharistic celebration that the NCW was supposed to adapt in the next two years. However, in the next two years, the NCW made absolutely no change to the way they celebrated the Eucharist.  Why?  The answer is found in Father Walsh's letter to Tim Rohr.  

According to Father Walsh's letter, the approval of the Statutes was supposed to take place in February 27, 2006; but that never happened. Why?  Because it was removed and sent back to four dicasteries of the Curia for further review.  Cardinal Rylko then instructed Kiko to maintain the present practice and take no action until the Holy See resolves the issues.  Thus, for the next two years, the NCW continued to receive and consume the Body of Christ sitting down.  Therefore, how can one fault Kiko Arguello for disobedience when he was instructed by Cardinal Rylko to maintain the present practice and take no action until the Vatican resolves the issue?   
It was on May 11, 2008 when the Statutes were finally approved. Whatever the issues were in the Curia, it was finally resolved. The changes that came after that were not the same.  The change that was made was to stand to receive the Body of Christ by hand, then sit down and hold His body close to your heart and contemplate Christ's Body with reverence.  Together with the priest, the assembly consumes the Body of Christ sitting down.  That was the change, and this change came with a written instruction.  I was there at the Beginning of the Year Convivence of 2008 when the entire approved Statutes were read page by page, and instructions were given as to how to celebrate the Eucharist.  Those instructions were given by Father Pius.  Apparently, that was the adaption the NCW was supposed to make in the two years had the Statutes been approved in 2006.

Tim Rohr claimed that I called Father Walsh a liar (See his comment in his blog. ) Actually, it was Tim who called Father Walsh a liar because he doubted every single word he wrote to him (See the weblink below):


  1. Wow! That makes more sense! Why adapt to a new change within the two years if the Vatican still has issues with the Eucharistic celebration?

    1. Dear Anonymous at 8:12 am,

      Exactly! If the Eucharist is to just follow the liturgical books in the Roman Missal, why should it even be an issue to others in the Curia? In addition to this, if the NCW had control of the Vatican (as Tim Rohr often claimed) it would not be an issue, and the Statutes would have been approved in 2006 after the experimental period was over.

  2. Where is the actual letter? Since this contains your "bold" interpretation inserted within the supposed letter... Just curious.

    "According to kiko arguello (the bold is mine)"

    1. Dear Anonymous at 8:33 am,

      I apologized that you were never aware of Kiko's letter to Pope Benedict XVI on January, 2006. That letter is found and misconstrued in every anti-Neo website including the jungle. You can find Kiko's full letter in the following weblink below:

  3. Cardinal Arinze's letter was sent in December 2005. In that letter, the pope granted a period of two years (to dec 2007) for the NCW to make those changes to the Eucharistis praxis. And now you say that the NCW didn't make any changes in that time. In other words, they completely ignored the pope's instructions.

    It is not surprising then that you argue (along with Fr Walsh) that it seemed silly to make changes when the approval of the Statutes (thats "statutes" not "statues" by the way) was pending....Except, that you had already had two years and did nothing!

    Even so, when the Statutes were finalised and promulgated, they included (at footnote 49) a reference to the same letter by Cardinal Arinze. Specifically, this is a footnote to Article 13 pf the Statutes which relates to the manner of reception of communion.

    Your argument - that the Statutes somehow superseded the instruction of Cardinal Arinze/Pope Benedict - is rendered obsolete merely by pointing to that footnore. The Statutes seem to be saying that the content of Cardinal Arinze's letter is still relevant to the way in which you receive communion. But in reality, you simply ignore it.

    If you were truly faithful you would do what the Statutes tell you. The Statutes are intended to be understood, but there seems to be a mythologising of the role of "leader" in the NCW where every document/speech etc must be interpreted for the member by an enlightened one, rather than simply comprehending what the Statutes actually say. You are all deceived, it would seem.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 10:50 am,

      Apparently, you did not read my entry post. I would appreciate it if you would read the OP first before commenting. It was Cardinal Rylko who told Kiko to maintain the current practice until the Vatican resolves the issue, and he has a point. If Kiko had ignored Rylko and if there were any other changes once the issue was resolved, Kiko would have to go back and once again tell the NCW to adapt to another change.

      Since Kiko obeyed Cardinal Rylko, the jungle accused him of disobeying Cardinal Arinze. If he obeyed Cardinal Arinze, Kiko would be accused of disobeying cardinal Rylko. Either way, he would be accused of disobedience anyway simply because of pure hatred.

      Cardinal Rylko has a point. This is not a matter of the Statutes superseding the instructions of Cardinal Arinze. It is simply a matter of common sense. Until the matter is clearly resolved by the Vatican, then the NCW can make the proper adaptions or changes. And these changes came with a written instruction. As I said, I was there at the beginning of the year retreat when Father Pius announced those changes. He had a paper with him as he was informing us of those instructions. He said the instructions came from Kiko who received the same instructions from the Pope.

    2. Where is the paper that states the instruction from the Pope? Do you have the document that Pius read from?

    3. Dear Anonymous at 8:34 pm,

      Why? So, you twist it up and misconstrue it like everything else? A person who has an agenda to remove the Archbishop and destroy the NCW is not interested in the truth no matter what document is shown to them.

  4. The TRUTH is that there is no letter from the Vatican; you clearly admit it by not providing prof of its existence.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 5:48 am,

      The truth is a written document exists. Whether you believe it or not is not my problem. That is your problem.

  5. The TRUTH as you stated "I was there when there when Father Pius read the instructions. Only Father Pius has the document; a document that cannot be authenticated other than from the messenger. Clearly you can't share what you don't have other than what you heard.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 6:26 am,

      Clearly, I have always shared what I heard and saw at the Beginning of the Year convivience at 2008. Were you there? I never said that I have the document. I am sure the Archbishop have the same document because he admitted to the Toto parishioners that he has the document and has seen the instruction.

      Why is it so difficult to believe? How is it easier for you to believe Tim Rohr when he said the Archbishop wanted to sell the RM seminary?

    2. AnonymousDecember 28, 2015 at 6:26 AM

      You may question the integrity of Father Pius but you do not know the Spirit that sustains Father Pius.

      I believe that you and people like you only accept the truth of your limited spiritual mind and nothing else.

  6. You can't be obedient unless there is proof that a directive was given.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 8:35 am,

      Pope Benedict XVI was the one who launched an investigation into the Way because so many people like you wrote letters of complaint. So, the Pope was fully aware of your letters of complaint, and nothing ever came out of the investigation. By the time Pope Francis took over, he dismissed the investigation and gave the NCW his strongest support on March 6th. There is your proof. The NCW has the support of the Pope, the Vicar of Christ. If you believe the Pope is wrong, that is not my problem.

    2. The fact that Pope Benedict launched an investigation should be a cause for your concern, not a justification for your continued recalcitrance.

      A few comments by Pope Francis does not constitute proof. In a Church where everything is officially announced, a verbal, private permission just doesn't cut it. In fact it is highly suspicious. If it were anyone else, you would be the first to agree.

      Also, the fact that some years after the Statutes were promulgated, and therefore some time after you were "instructed" by Fr Pius, the NCW were drumming up piblicity for an expected announcement by the Vatican for the approval of the celebrations of the liturgy particular to the NCW. Pope Benedict was the one to block that, but you seem to think he gave Kiko permission immediately prior to that. It doesn't add up and I think you know it.

    3. Dear Anonymous at 8:07 pm,

      The fact that Pope Francis dismissed that investigation exonerates the NCW from all accusations.

      Permission was already given permission, but it was in 2008 when the the Statutes were finally approved. The catechetical Directory, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the Eucharistic celebration.

    4. Who mentioned the Catechetical Directory? I'm speaking of the lead up to the January 2012 "announcement" at the Vatican.

      According to a well known journalist:
      "What had happened was that the pontifical council for the laity headed by Cardinal Stanislaw Rylko had prepared the text for a degree of blanket approval of all the liturgical and extra-liturgical celebrations of the Neocatechumenal Way, to be made public the January 20 on the occasion of a meeting scheduled between the pope and the Way."

      Until the pope found out and stopped it.

      So this was four years after the promulgation of the Statutes, and supposedly four years after you were told you had "permission", but the pope denied the agitations of the NCW and its allies and instead did not "approve" and variations to the NCW Eucharistic practices.

      If even the NCW were hoping for an official approval, which never came, how then do you have the audacity to suggest that we believe you actually already had such "approval".
      And this idea that Pope Francis discontinuing the investigations is proof of his blanket support (and therefore a confirmation that the NCW has absolutely no need of reform) is just plain stupid.

      When the pope or the vatican acts, there is a necessary formal, juridical, and documented process that must be adhered to. And yet, it is totally absent in this case.

      (do you know anything about the terms of reference of those investigations? Do you knopw anything about them at all?)

    5. Dear Anonymous at 1:54 pm,

      The Catechetical Directory was approved in January, 2012. The Catechetical Directory contained the catechesis, not the Eucharistic litury, which was already approved in 2008. What Cardinal Rylko was preparing was the Catechetical Directory to be approved by the Holy See. What was made public in January 2012 was the Catechetical Directory

    6. Dear Diana at 9.52PM

      You are plain wrong - please inform yourself correctly. The approval for publication of the Catechetical Directory was announced in January 2011, not in 2012:

      The event in January 2012 was exactly as I described - ie it was anticipated that the NCW would be receiving definitve approval for the peculiarities of its Eucharistic practices. The entire NCW was getting ready for this amazing announcement. If you are honest, you would admit this.

      And so, the question remains - why would the NCW world be so eagerly waiting for such an approval, if, as you say, such an approval had alr3eady been given in 2008?

    7. Dear Anonymous at 2:07 pm,

      The Catechetical Directory was announced, read, and approved on January 20, 2012. The Catechetical Directory has nothing to do with the Eucharistic liturgy, which was already approved by the Vatican in 2008. The directory contains the Way's catechesis. Perhaps, what you heard was another rumor. There is a lot of rumors floating around.

    8. Did you not read the article I linked?

    9. Dear Anonymous at 4:19 pm,

      I may have misunderstood you. I took another look at the weblink, and found that you are correct. The year was 2011. What was the controversy that led to the January 2012 announcement? Could you explain about that in detail? Are saying that the controversy involve the Eucharistic celebration or the Catechetical Directory?

    10. As has been said many times before, in 2012 the NCW were expecting an announcement that all their liturgical practises were to be approved. This would be unnecessary, of course, were we to belive your claim that permission had already been givem.

      Rather than grant the NCW what it was hoping for, Pope Benedict (the same Pope you claim gave Kiko secret permission) changed the script and gave approval only to those activities in the Catechetical texts, that weren't already regulated by the liturgical books.

      Oh, that's right, the Mass is regulated by liturgical books, isn't it?

    11. Dear Anonymous at 12:37 am,

      The only place I could find where the NCW expected an announcement that all their liturgical practices of the NCW would be approved on January, 2012 was in all the anti-Neo websites such as the following one:

      Anti-Neo websites have an agenda to discredit the NCW even by telling lies. I went through the neutral news reports of the January, 2012 announcement and there was no mention of the NCW expecting any other announcement other than the Pope's approval of the NCW celebrations in the Catechetical Directory. Below are all the news report from the Vatican Bulletin on January 20, 2012. There were only four announcements on that date. Two of those announcements involved the NCW:

    12. Thanks for the link. I note the following comments from Pope Benedict:

      " "Celebration in small communities, regulated by the books of the liturgy which must be accurately followed, and with the particular features approved in the Statutes of the Way, helps the followers of the Neo-Catechumenal Way to perceive the grace of being part of Christ's salvific mystery. ... At the same time the progressive maturity in faith of individuals and small communities must favour their insertion into the life of the ecclesial community as a whole, which has its ordinary form in the liturgical celebrations in parishes, in which and for which the neo-catechumenate is implemented.

      "Yet even during the journey it is important not to separate oneself from the parish community, and particularly in the celebration of the Eucharist which is the true place of universal unity, where the Lord embraces us in our various states of spiritual maturity and unites us in the one bread that makes us one body"

      It amazes me that you keep up this charade about having been given permission by him.

  7. From Junglewatch:

    TimDecember 28, 2015 at 3:02 PM
    You gotta love the childishness of this - and it is constant, I.e. "We haven't gotten spanked yet so we must be okay."

    Such idiots. Rome doesn't work that way. Rome worked for years with Henry VIII and Martin Luther privately and never took public action against them until they themselves took public action against Rome.

    Unlike Apuron, the Church is paternal, and attempts to reconcile with the wayward quietly.

    Diana does not know if the investigation was "called off" because nothing was found. An investigation may very well be called off because the investigators found what they are looking for. Once found, it would be very typical of the Church to work quietly to bring whatever is out of line, into line.

    How presumptious are DIANA and her dingbats on the good of the Church - declaring themselves free of sin just because there has been no public proclamation against them.

    As for "strongest support," the only thing I can find is where Kiko was reminded by the pope to stay within the boundaries of his "charter," the Statute. You can read that here:

    1. Dear Anonymous at 6:52 am,

      You can give this reply to Tim Rohr.

      Rome worked for years with Henry VIII and Martin Luther because there was no television and internet at that time; therefore news and communication was very slow. Today, communication is so much faster. One of the first things that Pope Francis did was excommunicate a priest in Australia for supporting women's ordination. And that was fast.

      A Vatican delegation was sent to Guam to interview people to find out what is really going on when controversy broke out in 2013 with Father Paul. Archbishop Krebs visited Guam twice. The Vatican acted very quickly in sending a Vatican delegation. The only reason Rome has not acted is simply because the Vatican Delegation has found the Archbishop innocent of any allegations brought by the jungle and CCOG (which is really just another mouthpiece of the jungle).

      There is only one reason why any investigation is called off. It is because the allegations were unfounded. It has already been a little over 7 years since the Statutes have been approved; therefore, the Vatican should already have disciplined Kiko Arguello into compliance rather than honoring him with awards. How long does Rohr expect the Church to be paternal especially when an Australian priest was excommunicated within 1 year.

  8. Anonymous ''T I M'' No response

    1. Hey Anon. Tim gave his response:

      TimDecember 30, 2015 at 6:05 PM

      Yah a great example of why I call Diana a "whorehouse of a blog." She sleeps with every rumor that pretends to justify her public prostitution to Kiko's cause. LOL.

      The Australian priest was excommunicated in 2013. He had already had his faculties removed by his bishop in 2011. Unless you're Apuron, priestly faculties are not removed with out a thorough investigation as well as many pastoral invitations to reform.

      The priest had a long history of violating church law including supporting gay marriage, advocating for the ordination of women, and being present when communion was given to a dog.

      Technically it was not Francis who excommunicated the priest. The priest was excommunicated at the request of the priest's bishop - which is how these things work when you have a bishop who actually does his job - WHICH WE DON'T.

      The pope acted on the years of evidence as presented by the priest's bishop. For Dingbat to say that the pope acted promptly as if he had done the investigation personally shows her diseased whorehouse mind.

      Regardless of the facts, to say so serves her purpose, so she prostitutes the truth to serve her Lord and Master Kiko Arguello and his arch-demon, the spiritual-syphilitic, yellow-mouth, Pius the Putrid.

      LOL, Dingbat. Courage.

    2. Dear Anonymous at 8:34 pm,

      My response is found in the following weblink below:

  9. So sad that Tim Rohr resorts to such vulgar and demeaning language to express his opinions. I remember reading somewhere of this guy who said that he always knows when a person is losing in an argument and that is when the guy starts screaming and using foul language.

    I always thought that Christianity is based on loving the others. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. That is Saint Paul writing

  10. Dear Diana,
    re Yours of Dec 31 9:45am, you state:

    "The only place I could find where the NCW expected an announcement that all their liturgical practices of the NCW would be approved on January, 2012 was in all the anti-Neo websites such as the following one..."

    Firstly, I am ashamed and embarrassed by the crude talk on blogs from those that call themselves followers of Christ. Please stop, for the love of God.

    Secondly, I am not a part of the Rohr team, although in the past I was happy that he had a genuine concern for the NCW, and had been trying to correct them charitably.

    Thirdly, and I believe this is very important; however, I don't think you'll believe me. But no matter, God knows I'm not lying.
    I'm from another country. When the NCW came to our city, I researched the group. I was extremely concerned that the Mass didn't seem to have the recognitio or indults for the many alterations in their Mass. This was late in 2011. When I spoke to the priest and seminarian that had come to promote the Way, I was told emphatically that "very shortly" the NCW was going to get the written approval for all their additions and deletions in their Mass. This was "definitely." I was stunned. Every encyclical, every letter dealing with the Eucharist, especially those of (St.)John Paul II that I had studied screamed "no way." "How can that be possible?" The seminarian, even said,"Even the way we give Communion" will be approved. This was said directly to me; it is not heresay, nor is it concocted to put the Way down. I'm strictly passing on this info because the truth is important; and if correction and repentance must take place, better it be now before one dies rebelling against the will of God. Like I said, this was said directly to me

    Well, "very shortly," came Jan.2012. And needless to say, no approval for the additions and deletions to the NCW Mass was given.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 5:21 pm,

      I find that interesting that a priest and seminarian in your country claimed that the NCW would get approval in 2011 for the way they do the Eucharist. I was told differently. In 2008, at the beginning of the Year Convivience, the Head Catechist of Guam told us that the new instruction on how to do the Eucharist came from Kiko who in turn got the same information from the Pope. Our head Catechist, Father Pius is not far away from Kiko Arguello. Father Pius' Catechist is Guiseppi Genanri (spelling). Guiseppi's Catechist is Kiko Arguello. So, Guam is only a third away from Kiko Arguello.

    2. There were articles about this prior to the audience on 20 January 2012, I recall. Vatican Insider had claimed that a permission for the various liturgies of the NCW had been granted by the Pontifical Council for the Laity at the end of December 2011, and everyone (in the NCW) was expecting Pope Benedict to make it formal in the January 2012 audience.

      He didn't though. Instead he read a decree pertaining to the celebration of those activities in the Directory that weren't already regulated by the liturgical books (like the Mass), and then he gave a lecture on the Mass. Look it up, its worth reading.

    3. Dear Anonymous at 10:58 pm,

      Can you provide those articles prior to the January 20th 2012 announcement? According to the Vatican bulletin I provided, there was a decree signed by Cardinal Rylko and approved by the Vatican on January 8, 2012. If that was the controversial decree, then why was it approved by the Vatican? January 8th was only a few days before the January 20th announcement. According to the Vatican bulletin:


      VATICAN CITY, 20 JAN 2012 (VIS) - The Pontifical Council for the Laity today published a decree approving the celebrations contained in the Catechetical Directory of the Neo-Catechumenal Way. The decree is dated 8 January, Feast of the Baptism of the Lord, and bears the signatures of Cardinal Stanislaw Rylko and Bishop Josef Clemens, respectively president and secretary of the council.

      The text published today reads: "By a decree of 11 May 2008 the Pontifical Council for the Laity gave definitive approval to the Statutes of the Neo-Catechumenal Way. Subsequently, following due consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, by a decree of 26 December 2010, the council gave approval to the publication of the Catechetical Directory as a valid and binding instrument for the catechesis of the Neo-Catechumenal Way.

      "Now, pursuant to articles 131 and 133 paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Apostolic Constitution 'Pastor Bonus' on the Roman Curia, the Pontifical Council for the Laity, having received the 'nulla osta' of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, grants approval to those celebrations contained in the Catechetical Directory of the Neo-Catechumenal Way which are not, by their nature, already regulated by the liturgical books of the Church".

      According to this decree approved by the Vatican on January 8, 2012, the NCW celebrations that are not found in the liturgical books have been approved. Naturally, those liturgies that are already in the books does not need approval.

  11. Dear Diana 716
    Let me clarify - When I spoke to the priest and seminarian that had come to promote the Way, I was told emphatically (by one of them) that "very shortly" the NCW was going to get the written approval for all their additions and deletions in their Mass. This was "definitely" going to happen. How is it then that they needed this approval when the NCW has been telling their followers that the approval already exists with the Statutes of 2008? Is it because, nowhere in the Statutes of 2008 are these alterations approved?
    Furthermore, to your December 27, 2015 12:45 PM where you state:
    "Since Kiko obeyed Cardinal Rylko, the jungle accused him of disobeying Cardinal Arinze. If he obeyed Cardinal Arinze, Kiko would be accused of disobeying cardinal Rylko. Either way, he would be accused of disobedience anyway simply because of pure hatred."

    I (again, no relationship to the Jungle), will state - I have no hatred for the NCW - (some of my best friends are members), but hopefully a love of the Truth. When there is a question of who to obey - in this case Cardinal Rylko or Cardinal Arinze, I would side with who represents the Pope's wishes. In this case, it is overwhelmingly Cardinal Arinze who first wrote on behalf of the Pope in 2005. Proof that he wrote on the Pope's behalf, was the Pope's letter in 2006 where he reminds Kiko to abide by the letter of 2005 from Arinze which was written on his behalf.
    Additional guidance of whom should have been obeyed comes from the Catechism 883 which states: "the college or body of bishops HAS NO AUTHORITY UNLESS UNITED WITH THE ROMAN PONTIFF, PETER'S SUCCESSOR, AS ITS HEAD."
    Hopefully, this helps.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 11:34 pm,

      And I am telling you my side of the story. There was a change in the way the NCW did the Eucharist in 2008. I was there when the change took place and when the entire Statutes were read. I was there when I heard Father Pius informed us of those changes. He stated that those instructions (the changes) came from Kiko who in turned received it from the Pope.

      Father Pius is the Head Catechist of Guam. Kiko Arguello is the catechist of Father Pius' catechist. He is not far removed from Kiko Arguello. Guam's catechist is only second (not third as I previously made) from Kiko Arguello.

      The way the NCW does its Eucharist is not kept a secret. Everyone in the Vatican knows. If Kiko is in violation, he would already have received some disciplinary action. Over seven years have gone by, and Kiko has not received any disciplinary action. Instead, he was rewarded to continue his work as the Consultor of the Pontifical Council of Laity under the new Pope, received an audience with Pope Francis and praised for a job well done, and was given an honorary doctorate.

    2. So are you saying that the bishop has no place in the hierarchy of the Neocatechumenal Way. All authority comes the catechists.

    3. Dear Anonymous at 10:46 am,

      I said no such thing. Since the new nstruction came from the Pope and was given to Kiko to give to the NCW communities, then we are in communion with the Pope. All authority comes from the Pope along with the Magisterium of whom the Catechists and Kiko Arguello must follow. As I said in my previous comment, the new instruction came from Kiko who in turn received it from the Pope.

  12. Dear Diana and members of the NCW,
    The NCW Mass was designed with a convivial banquet in mind. Now that we know better, is it not time to change?
    Real history and theology combine to illustrate the genuine Catholic tradition regarding Liturgy of the Universal Church - both East and West - in a book "It is the Lord" by Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan. The preface was written by Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, along with an endorsement from the prefect of that dicastery, Francis Cardinal Arinze.

    Excellent talks by Bishop Athanasius Schneider can be found on utube:

    EWTN Live 2013-01-09:

    Most Rev. Athanasius Schneider on Communion in the Hand:

    The Renewal of the Liturgy:

    The Sacredness of the Holy Eucharist and the Fathers of the Church:

    Some interesting tidbits from Bishop Schneider:

    In the early church, there was no permission for laypeople to touch the Eucharist with fingers. Communion was received in the "right" hand and with a profound bow, one would use their mouth to pick up Jesus off the palm of their hand, carefully consuming every tiny fragment. The women, would also be required to have a white cloth on their palm, onto which Jesus was placed. They too would make a profound bow and consume Jesus off the white cloth.,carefully making sure no fragment remained.
    The church later realized that there was a need to protect tiny fragments (dogma - each of the tiniest fragments wholly Jesus) from falling to the ground and our Lord being trampled. Hence, communion directly in the mouth.

    Proper translation is "receive" and eat, NOT, "take" and eat.

    Ezekiel 2:8-9; 3:2-3 Ezekiel received the Word "directly" into his mouth.

    Psalm 81:11 Open your mouth and I will fill it.

    John 13-26 So when He had dipped the morsel, He took and gave it to Judas.
    ---It is highly improbable that Jesus gave Judas a soggy morsel in his hand. It was the tradition (which still exists today in that area) that the head of the house would place a piece of bread directly into their guest's mouth.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 11:50 pm,

      Bishop Athanasius Schneider supports the SSPX. The founder of SSPX along with his organization was excommunicated by St. John Paul II. See the weblink below:

      So, you think the NCW should follow a man who supports an organization that is not in full communion with the Catholic Church? I do not think so. My recommendation is that you also not follow a man who supports an organization who is not in full communion with the Catholic Church because they do not recognize the legitimacy of Vatican Council II. The excommunication of the SSPX was uplifted by Pope Benedict XVI on the condition that they accept Vatican II. So far, they have not lived up to that condition. Although Pope Francis included the SSPX priests in his "Year of Mercy" confessions, he recognize that the SSPX lacks official canonical status in the Church. See the weblink below:

      You also stated: "Proper translation is "receive" and eat, NOT, "take" and eat."

      This is incorrect. The Greek word for receive is "decomai", which was NOT used in that bilbical verse. The Greek word "lambano" was used in the biblical passage. It means "take." Furthermore, the Early Christians celebrated the Mass in people's homes using a table rather than altar. The Early Christians also understood that the Mass was both a banquet meal and a sacrifice.

  13. Dear Diana:
    Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan conducted an apostolic visit to two SSPX seminaries "at the request of the Holy See" recently. (Bp Schneider is a friend of tradition and the TLM. He has a great love for the Holy Eucharist and wants to return to communion on the tongue only. Even (St.) John Paul II and
    Benedict XVI preferred Communion on the tongue. Communion on the Tongue can never be abolished in the Roman Rite, and no priest or bishop can refuse a communicant who wishes to receive this way; however, the indult for Communion on the Tongue can be removed. I personally hope this happens soon for several reasons that Bishop Schneider voices, but also for the belief that only the people that truly believe that This is the Lord, and truly desire Him, will allow themselves to become like little children and open their mouths for the Eucharistic Food. I say this because I've seen where some when they go to the Eastern rite Mass, because they must open their mouths to receive the Body soaked in the Blood, refuse to go to communion. Disbelief in the True Presence, sin of Pride.......????
    The preface of Bishop Schneider's book, was written by Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, along with an endorsement from the prefect of that dicastery, Francis Cardinal Arinze. Cardinal Arinze, says of Bishop Schneider's Book IT IS THE LORD, "I have read the whole book with delight. It is excellent."

    To me, this doesn't sound like Bishop Schneider is the ogre you make him out to
    be. As for the SSPX, don't be surprised if Pope Francis restores them to full official canonical status in the Church.
    re your "The Early Christians also understood that the Mass was both a banquet meal and a sacrifice."
    Yes this is true; however, when the NCW Mass was designed, it was understood that it was a convivial banquet and NOT a sacrifice. That is why there was a removal of: Prayers that referred to sacrifice, the word "priest" because priests offered sacrifices,the altar because that was where sacrifices were made, kneeling in adoration of the Sacrificial Lamb -also because there was no belief in transubstanciation (spelling?) If this is changed, so must the NCW Mass change. Otherwise, it is still a reflection of the erroneous beliefs.
    In regards to the word "take" if you are correct, Jesus was still addressing his apostles who He instituted as priests - therefore, they were allowed to touch the Eucharist.