Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Pope Francis: "I Am A Brother."

An anonymous commenter copied and pasted Tim Rohr's comment in the jungle, which can be found here.  According to the comment below (the last part was edited out): 

Look at this language from JW:

Tim February 15, 2016 at 9:25 AM

The Bishop is NOT Catholic. To say otherwise is an absurdity. You may think he is Catholic. You may wish he was. But until the bishop stops being “Brother Tony,” he is neither bishop nor Catholic.
On the contrary, the Archbishop is Catholic.  Being called "Brother Tony" is not a reason to declare someone a non-Catholic.  If that were the case, then the jungle would also have to call Pope Francis a non-Catholic.  Why?  Because the Pope also said that he is a "brother."  Speaking to prisoners at the Curran Fromhold Correctional Facility in Philadelphia, Pope Francis stated:
“I am here as a pastor, but above all as a brother, to share your situation and to make it my own,”

In the Neocatechumenal Way, members are taught that the priest is a "father" FOR us, and a "brother" WITH us.  That is what Pope Francis was saying to the inmates in Philadelphia.  He is there as a pastor (father), but above all as a brother.  Being called a "brother" is not a reason for the jungle to declare the Archbishop of Guam a non-Catholic.  To do so is ludicrous.  Being called a "brother" is not even a sin.  Furthermore, having grammatical errors in a letter is also not a reason to declare the Archbishop a non-Catholic as the jungle suggested.  It is insane to use grammatical errors as evidence of being non-Catholic.  Grammatical errors are also not sins. 

Apuron was placed as Archbishop of Guam by the Pope.  As long as he has not been removed by the Pope, he legally remains the Archbishop of Guam by canon law.  The jungle can say whatever they want, but their words do not change the truth that Anthony Apuron is the legitimate Archbishop of Guam, the local Vicar of Christ, and Catholic in the eyes of the Holy See.  


  1. Now we have the clear cut admission and confession that Tim Rohr, JW, Laity Forward and Concerned Catholics do not consider themselves part of the Catholic Church on Guam led by Archbishop Apuron. They say they do not belong to us. They do not belong to the flock led by the rightfully appointed leader. Where they belong to, then?

    They have already proved their hostility towards the faithful by trying to deprive the Church from its financial means. They told us not to contribute to the Sunday collection. But how can they have any business with us Catholics who belong to the diocese of Guam led by our Archbishop?

    If they don't belong to the flock, how do they dare to interfere with our faith life and mislead the Catholics in our churches? We will always consider that Catholic Shepard our leader who is appointed by Rome to lead archdiocese. There isn't and never can be any compromise on that!

    1. "They do not belong to the flock led by the rightfully appointed leader. Where they belong to, then?"

      I don't know where they belong to, but I surely don't want to belong there, where they belong to!

  2. If we follow the 'logic' of Rohr, then we must negate the great personalities and saints of the church like Saint Paul of Tarsus, St. Augustine of Hippo, Pope Francis and all the great and small alike who ascribe to themselves that most venerable title of 'brother'.
    Rorh insists that the archbishop is no longer Catholic because 'Brother' Anthony equates himself as a brother in the community of the church. So, I suppose that our catholicity has to be determined by the mind of Mr. Rohr? Maybe Rohr can submit an application for a job at the Vatican. He can appoint himself as Quality Control Manager for 'catholicity'. I can just imagine him deposing many saints and venerables. This guy is a real JOKE!

  3. Tim Rohr excommunicated the Archbishop of Agana? How ridiculous is this? He declared high and loud that Archbishop Apuron, the rightfully appointed leader of the archdiocese, does not belong the Roman Catholic Church. Lol!

    The little problem is that Tim Rohr has not much to do with the Roman Catholic Church. He is distancing himself from the Holy Mother Church by every statement he makes. He admitted that he is a counter-Catholic, not belonging to the flock led by Archbishop Apuron on Guam. So where does he and his gang of semi-educated trouble makers belong to?

    He considers the bishops appointed by Rome Arians. What kind of silliness is this? He read something about Arius and the Arian heresy and now, in his half-baked understanding, he thinks every bishop is Arian. Lol. If this not the ultimissima of foolishness, then what is it? Educate yourself, please, dear Tim Rohr, about what Arianism is, who is an Arian and who is not.

    By taking the audacity to distance the JW group, CCoG and LFM from the Catholic faithful of Guam, even to excommunicate the Archbishop, a rightful Roman Catholic, Tim Rohr talked from the pulpit of a counter-Catholicism. This can be identified very clearly. He must be a high ranking official of the counter-Catholic movement. A high ranking covert personality with a set agenda to play counter against the Holy Mother Church and its flock of faithful adherents.

    Yeah, Tim Rohr, the pope of counter-Catholics! Lol. This truly must be the most hilarious joke of the century!

    1. This is not reasonable. A bishop is a bishop until his position is not rescinded. A Catholic bishop cannot be "excommunicated" by a lay person. Something is seriously wrong here.

  4. Diana, this is off-topic, but I always thought that like the Jews, the Early Christians saw Sunday as starting from sundown to sundown rather than sunrise to sunrise as Tim appears to be saying. Tim said:

    "The same is true for Saturday night Mass.

    Masses on Saturday evening have been permitted since 1967, but, like communion in the hand, the key word is "permitted," meaning that something other than the norm is allowed for a particular reason.........

    Aware of Kiko's intent to normalize Saturday night "eucharist" in his quest to "jewify" Christianity (Kiko's real aim), Rome made sure that the version of the NCW statute - which received final approval in 2008 - emphasized that the neo-Saturday night liturgy was NOT the norm.

    Art 13. §2 of the Statute permits the NCW to celebrate its liturgy on Saturday night.

    The neocatechumens celebrate the Sunday Eucharist in the small community after the first Vespers of Sunday. (First Vespers of Sunday occur on the Saturday after sunset.)

    The presence of this provision in the NCW Statute is a clear indication that the celebration of "the Sunday Eucharist...after the first Vespers of Sunday" (Saturday night) is not the norm, otherwise there would have been no need to mention it."


    1. Dear Anonymous at 11:09 am,

      Apparently, Tim Rohr is trying to manipulate Catholics into the Traditional Latin Mass by twisting history around. The first Christians were Jewish. The Jewish calendar starts the day from sunset to sunset. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

      "As with the Jewish Sabbath, the observance of the Christian Sunday began with sundown on Saturday and lasted till the same time on Sunday. Until quite recent times some theologians taught that there was an obligation under pain of venial sin of assisting at vespers as well as of hearing Mass, but the opinion rests on no certain foundation and is now commonly abandoned. The common opinion maintains that, while it is highly becoming to be present at Vespers on Sunday, there is no strict obligation to be present. The method of reckoning the Sunday from sunset to sunset continued in some places down to the seventeenth century, but in general since the Middle Ages the reckoning from midnight to midnight has been followed."


      BEFORE 1967, it was common (the norm) to define Sunday as from sunset to sunset in many places especially the Holy Land where Christ came from. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, it was until the MIDDLE AGES that Catholics started defining Sunday as being from "midnight to midnight", which has been followed since then.

      The Bible said that Jesus rose on the first day of the week BEFORE the sunrise and it was still dark. This means that it was ALREADY Sunday when it was STILL dark before the sun rose. According to the Holy Bible (Capitalization is mine):

      John 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, WHILE IT WAS STILL DARK, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.

      As anyone can see from the Gospel of John, it was STILL DARK, and St. John already called it the "first day of the week." The sun has not risen yet, and St. John already said that it was the first day of the week.

    2. " The first Christians were Jewish"

      Thats just stupid. The first Christians accepted Christ. Jews do not. Anyway, "Jews" in your context simply referring to the cultural context, not to the religious belief. This is where you all go wrong. by, definition, Jres are not Christian. If Jews accept Christ, then they are Christian. Well before the end of the Acts, it was established that Christians are not Jews, and do not need to observe Mosaic law.

    3. TimFebruary 17, 2016 at 10:26 AM

      To summarize, we are speaking of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, wherein the whole plan of salvation, culminating the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus, is memorialized as Christ instructed. That the Church from the days of the Apostles has chosen to conduct that memorial on "the first day of the week" (as we see in Acts 20:7) and near the moment of sunrise, regardless of geography, is historically irrefutable.

    4. The first ones to believe in Christ were the Apostles. They were Jewish. St. Paul referred to himself as a Jew rather than a Christians (see Acts 22:3). Christ was also not a Christian. He was a Jew who followed Jewish customs and beliefs.

      The people who were the first to use the name "Christians" were the converts of Antioch. That is found in the Holy Bible.

    5. Dear Anonymous at 12:52 pm,

      Tim Rohr can say whatever he wants. He is only contradicting what the Catholic Encyclopedia clearly stated: " the observance of the Christian Sunday began with sundown on Saturday and lasted till the same time on Sunday."


    6. AnonymousFebruary 17, 2016 at 12:52 PM

      " The first Christians were Jewish" Thats just stupid.

      You know that guy on the cross?...what was his name?.....believe the mother was Mary? Was he born a Jew? Became the head of the Catholic Church? Was he the first Christian?

    7. " Was he the first Christian?"

      Christian means a follower op Christ. SO no, he wasn't the first Christian.

      Did you not pay attention? Jew in one context means a member of a certain group. In another it means an observer a certain religion. Jesus Christ established the true religion. Judaism was rendered complete in Christ, and was no longer necessary

    8. Dear Anonymous at 10:11 am,

      In order to understand why the Apostles never called themselves "Christians", you need to look at the time period of those days, NOT today. The Apostles were followers of Christ, but they never called themselves "Christians"; however, they were the FIRST followers of Christ (Christians). Therefore, the Apostles of Christ defined Sunday as starting from Saturday evening at sundown to Sunday evening at sundown. The name "Christians" was referred to the converts in Antioch (see Acts 11:26). Therefore, when I said that the first Christians were Jews, I was referring to the Apostles of Christ who often referred themselves as Jews. Although they were followers of Christ, they still go into the synagogues.

    9. All these questions about, 'priesthood, christians (name), hierarchy are all developments that followed decades after Jesus resurrection. All are products of the Jesus movement.
      There is no blue print of what we know now as Church. It developed thru the years.

    10. Ok. The first followers of Jesus Christ were culturally Jewish, as was Jesus himself and his mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary.

      However, Jesus established a new people of God, that included all nations and was not limited to the Jewish people. The Apostles very quickly expanded their evangelisation to all people, and ruled that it was not necessary to be culturally Jewish or to observe Jewish rites in order to follow Christ.

      Those people that accepted Christ, and who were culturally Jewish, were no longer "religiously" Jewish in the way that those that rejected Christ might identify as "religiously" Jewish. Those that rejected Christ (namely, Pharisees and others of hard heart) remained identified as Jewish. The Pharisees and those others that rejected Christ were dispersed into the nations when the temple was destroyed and Jerusalem sacked in 70AD. They went on to invent the Kabbalah, and the Talmud, which was nothing more that the continuation of the hard hearted rules the Pharisees held against the common people - the same rules and hardness of heart that Jesus categorically condemned.

      The modern Jews are descendents of the Talmudic/Pharisaic Judaism which sprang up after the destruction of the Temple. Modern Judaism is no more ancient that Christianity - in fact, Christianity, as the authentic development of ancient Judaism can be considered more ancient and more true.

      The Neocatechumenal Way, like some other misguided sections of the Church, identify modern Judaism with the Judaism that Jesus observed, however, as discussed, Jesus clearly rejected that form of Judaism himself. We should do the same, and call all Jewish people, whether Jews by genealogy only, or by religious observance, to conversion to the true faith.


  5. Dear Diana,

    re yours 11:58 - "As anyone can see from the Gospel of John, it was STILL DARK, and St. John already called it the "first day of the week." The sun has not risen yet, and St. John already said that it was the first day of the week."

    The Church in her liturgy celebrates the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of Man, on Easter Sunday. All four Gospels date the Resurrection to the "first day of the week," but Matthew (28:1) and Mark (16:1) specifically add that it was after the "Sabbath was over." (Sabbath starts from nightfall Friday to nightfall Saturday)

    Matthew 28:1 - After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene came with the other Mary to inspect the tomb.

    Mark 16:1 - When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James,and Salome bought perfumed oils with which they intented to go and anoint Jesus. VERY EARLY, JUST AFTER SUNRISE, on the first day of the week they came to the tomb.

    Now, ????? Was it dark? Was it after sunrise?

    Interestingly, in Genesis, God calls the light "day" and the darkness he called "night." Evening came, and morning followed - the first day. Evening came, and morning followed - the second day. Evening came, and morning followed - the third day........Seems like God likes the idea that "light (starting in the morning) determines a "day." Note, He did not say evening came - the first day, evening came - the second day, evening came, - the third day....

    Anyways, I like the idea of SONrise. After all, the Son of God is often affiliated with the Sun. Examples: Eucharistic Jesus is placed in the monstrance which is typically in the shape of a Sunburst. The Son rose; the Sun rose. The Son brings light into the darkness; the Sun brings light into the darkness.


    1. Dear Anonymous at 6:39 pm,

      I cited the Catholic Encyclopedia, which clearly stated: "As with the Jewish Sabbath, the observance of the Christian Sunday began with sundown on Saturday and lasted till the same time on Sunday."

      Are you telling me that the Catholic Encyclopedia is wrong?????? I will go by what the Catholic Encyclopedia says because it goes by the authority of the Catholic Church through their interpretation of sacred scripture. YOU, on the other hand, have no authority to interpret scripture, even if you do like the idea of SONrise.

      Furthermore, the Book of Genesis showed that the evening (darkness) came first before the morning (light). This is why in Hebrew the day starts from evening to evening. Just as you stated, it was the evening that came, and morning FOLLOWED.

      Genesis 1:2-3 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

      Genesis 1:13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

      As you can see from scripture, the evening came first and then the morning came second. The darkness covered the deep FIRST, and then God said, "Let there be light." The Catholic Encyclopedia was correct when it said that "the observance of the Christian Sunday began with sundown on Saturday and lasted till the same time on Sunday."

  6. Dear Diana
    Note that I said (Sabbath starts from nightfall Friday to nightfall Saturday)
    which corresponds exactly with your "the Catholic Encyclopedia, which clearly stated: "As with the Jewish Sabbath, the observance of the Christian Sunday began with sundown on Saturday and lasted till the same time on Sunday."
    WE DO NOT DIFFER HERE, So I do not understand what you are saying. Peace.

  7. When an anonymous uses the term "brother" or offers the word "peace" after writing with malicious intent to destroy the "brother".....anonymous is everything but. We have plenty self proclaimed theologians on Guam with degrees from the net. All knowing....righteous....defenders of the faith...but they are not by their actions considered my brother.

  8. Dear J. Bautista,
    Sorry you are offended by my remarks, that was not my intent. I believed this blog to be a place to dialogue without caustic remarks - to "correct" charitably if needed, and to rejoice in the good that others (NCW) do. I have NEVER written with a malicious intent to destroy the "Brother." I have ALWAYS commended the NCW for the good fruit that comes from them on this site.
    When I offer you peace, I sincerely mean it. To show hatred for others is a waste of energy that could be put to better use. Peace (my brother/sister in Christ) - really!

  9. Writing anonymously adds to misunderstanding; brothers and sisters in Christ should not be intimidated to speak freely. Woe to me if I do not proclaim the gospel. As we prepare during Lent for Easter...the resurrection, let us not be afraid to acknowledge our faults...our sins first before correcting others.

    Anonymous February 18, 2016 at 3:31 PM...may the Spirit of the risen Lord be with you and your family always.....Peace.

    1. J. Bautista
      For me, to prevent the sin of pride, I will remain anonymous. In the past I have quoted many saints, and popes, encyclicals, etc. in order to "correct" - let the credit go to those who have written them. I consider myself just to be a messenger. Remaining anonymous also gives protection that what I print will not be taken out of context and without complete understanding with my name attached to it. In a sense, it prevents others from slander.
      I ask you please to respect my freedom to share (including the gospel) under the label anony. Lent is a time to acknowledge our faults (and I do, not only in Lent, but every day.) (To remain anony. is not a sin.) Peace.

    2. Dear Anonymous at 12:06 am,

      You can use any anonymous name you want other than "anonymous." People who read my blog know which comments I wrote because I go by the anonymous name "Diana." J. Bautista is correct. There are too many people name "anonymous" that it is difficult to determine which anonymous wrote which.

      Furthermore, I prefer an honest discussion rather than backtracking. I do not appreciate a person coming in here insisting that the Early Christians defined Sunday at SUNRISE. And then when shown the Catholic Encyclopedia, decides to backtrack as though he/she never said anything about sunrise.

    3. The apostles to each man was martyred anonymous February 18, 2016 at 11:32 PM

      as with many other Saints of the Church. From the net

      Part of the reason for this is the competitive spirit with which we have been brought up, always instructed to seek the first place so that we can gain glory for ourselves and those near us. While this is understandable to a certain extent in the world we dwell in, the rules are totally different in God's world.

      One of my favorite stories in the Bible illustrates this beautifully. You will find it in Mark 10: 35-45. Jesus had just told his apostles that he was going to die, but rather than be concerned about his fate they were more concerned about their own. Two of the apostles - James and John, the sons of Zebedee - went to Jesus with the request that when He popped it and went to heaven, they were to be seated on either side of Him. Bemused, Jesus told them that they didn't know what they were asking! "Are you able to drink the cup that I drink?" He asked. The cup he was referring to was not, of course, the cup of wine, but the cup of suffering.

      We all seek glory, but all too often don't realize that it comes with a price tag. That the tag is suffering is made clear in yet another verse of Scripture. "The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory." (Romans 8:16-17 NIV, emphasis mine)

      Both the apostles were willing to pray the price, and they did. James was the first of the apostles martyred for Christ. He was beheaded at Jerusalem. (An interesting story is told of the Roman officer who guarded James. He had watched as James defended his faith at his trial. Overcome by conviction, he declared his new faith to the judge and knelt beside James to get his head lopped off too.)

      Courage anonymous

  10. Dear Diana,

    Here is an excerpt from "Dies Domini (THE LORD'S DAY) written by Saint (Pope) John Paul II: (CAPS are mine)

    "At SUNDAY MASSES in parishes, insofar as parishes are "Eucharistic communities",(52) it is normal to find different groups, movements, associations and even the smaller religious communities present in the parish. THIS ALLOWS EVERYONE TO EXPERIENCE IN COMMON WHAT THEY SHARE MOST DEEPLY, BEYOND the particular spiritual paths which, by discernment of Church authority,(53) legitimately distinguish them. This is why on Sunday, the day of gathering, SMALL GROUP MASSES ARE NOT TO BE ENCOURAGED: it is not only a question of ensuring that parish assemblies are not without the necessary ministry of priests, but also of ensuring that the life and UNITY of the Church community are fully safeguarded and promoted.(54) Authorization of
    possible and CLEARLY RESTRICTED exceptions to this general guideline will depend upon the wise discernment of the Pastors of the particular Churches, in view of special needs in the area of formation and pastoral care, and keeping in mind the good of individuals or groups — especially the benefits which such exceptions may bring to the entire Christian community."

    This is in line with the instructions that Pope Benedict XVI gave the NCW when he RESTRICTED the NCW Mass ONLY be a stepping stone towards celebrating the Mass with the whole community Sunday where everyone, no matter at what level of spirituality, comes together. The NCW was to "favour" being in Communion with the whole Church on Sunday."

    Peace. I truly hope this helps.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 1:15 am,

      The APPROVED Statutes of the NCW says that we can celebrate in small communities on SATURDAY evening, and these Statutes were approved by Pope Benedict XVI. The pope understood that the Mass is not separate but one with the rest of the parish Mass. In fact, the time we celebrate the Mass is not in conflict with the parish Mas.

    2. "The pope understood that the Mass is not separate but one with the rest of the parish Mass."

      If that were the case, why would the pope issue this instruction through the Congregation for the Divine Worship:

      " At least one Sunday per month, the communities of the Neocatechumenal Way must participate in the Holy Mass of the parish community. "

      And why would Pope Benedict tell the NCW this in 2012 (read this carefully):

      "Precisely to encourage people who have drifted away from the Church or have not received an appropriate formation to draw close to the riches of sacrament life, the Neocatechumens may celebrate the Sunday Eucharist in the small community, after the first Vespers of Sunday, according to the dispositions of the diocesan bishop (cf. Statute, art. 13 § 2). However, every Eucharistic celebration is an action of the one Christ together with his one Church and is therefore essentially open to all who belong to his Church. This public character of the Blessed Eucharist is expressed in the fact that every celebration of Holy Mass is ultimately directed by the bishop as a member of the Episcopal College, responsible for a specific local Church (cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, n. 26). It is the task of the celebration in the small communities — regulated by the liturgical books that must be faithfully followed, with the details approved in the Statue of the Way — to help all who follow the Neocatechumenal itinerary to perceive the grace of being inserted in the saving mystery of Christ which makes possible a Christian witness that can assume radical features. At the same time, the gradual growth in faith of the individual and of the small community should foster their insertion in the life of the large ecclesial community, whose usual place is in the liturgical celebration of the parish, in which and for which it is implemented (cf. Statute, art. 6). Nevertheless in this process it is also important not to be separate from the parish community, precisely in the celebration of the Eucharist which is the true place of the unity of all, where the Lord embraces us in the different states of our spiritual maturity and unites us in the one bread that makes us one body (cf. 1 Cor 10:16f.). "

      It is abundantly clear that the Pope considered that the NCW worship in small communities was not an end in itself (ie to continue ad infinitum - as you actually think), but rather a means to an end - ie that by passing through a period of worship in small communities, the individual, and indeed the community itself, would then move on to Mass in the larger parish context.

      Not only is your logic incorrect, you continually lie to yourself and your readers.

    3. Dear Anonymous at 12:37 pm,

      There are many Catholics who stopped going to the parish Mass. Just look at who attends the parish Mass. Where are the youths in the parish Masses? Unlike you, the NCW evangelizes and are able to get the youths and those who stopped attending the parish Mass into the NCW. Most members of the NCW prefer to attend the Mass in the NCW despite that it is 2 hours long. Nevertheless, the pope required that we only attend the parish Mass once a month. That is ONCE A MONTH, and that is what the NCW will do.......only once a month. As long as we follow what the pope recommend (which is once a month), why should you have a problem with that? Since the pope recommends once a month, that is fine with me.

      Eventually in time, the parish Mass will follow in the footsteps of the NCW and will be 2 hours long.

    4. Did you completely ignore the rest of the post, namely Pope Benedict's lesson to the NCW on the mass, because you have no answer? Or because you know it overrules your simplistic "Only once a month" stupid response?

    5. Dear Anonymous at 2:37 pm,

      Listening is a two-way street. There were many times on my blog that I have said that many NCW members participate in the Sunday parish Mass. Why? Because after being in the Way for many years, the Holy Spirit have moved these members to become alter servers in the Sunday parish Mass, Eucharist Ministers in the Sunday parish Mass, Lectors in the Sunday parish Mass, and choir members in the Sunday parish Mass. Some NCW members even give up their time to clean the parishes, maintain parish grounds, become CCD instructors and coordinators, volunteer in serving in the parish council or work in the parish office.

      The Holy Spirit have moved the NCW members to do much more than attend and sit in the pews every Sunday parish Mass. Some of us not only attend the Eucharist in the Way but ALSO attend the regular Sunday Mass as Eucharistic Ministers, Lectors, alter servers, and choir members. And then you come in here trying to convince the NCW to give up the Saturday celebration of the Eucharist to attend the regular Sunday parish Mass????

    6. "And then you come in here trying to convince the NCW to give up the Saturday celebration of the Eucharist to attend the regular Sunday parish Mass???? "

      No, the pope did that. After he said that the Mass in the small communities serves the purpose of preparing members for the celebration in the larger ecclesial community "whose usual place is in the liturgical celebration of the parish, in which and for which it is implemented "

      Do you actually have a response to this statement by the pope? Or are you merely going to insist that you know better, and therefore ignore what he said?

    7. Dear Anonymous at 6:53 pm,

      The pope knew better than you. He knew that by celebrating in small communities, the Holy Spirit would move individuals to go beyond attending the regular parish Mass. They would not only serve and do voluntary work in the parish but even evangelize for the universal Church in other countries. Because you failed to listen, any comments from you regarding this subject will not be published.

  11. I am a daily Mass Catholic living my catholic faith. I follow the pope and teaching of our church. But I do not follow Archbishop nor acknowledge him as leader of this Archdiocese. So yes I am a new thinking catholic. Yes to Jesus Yes to our faith. No to the position of Archbishop. I can live practice my faith without even acknowledging Archbishop Apuron. No longer important to our faith life.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 6:50 am,

      I disagree. You are not living out your faith. You are a Catholic going through the routine motion of going to daily mass. Living out the Catholic faith is much more than simply going to daily mass. Also, you do not follow the Pope because it was the Pope who appointed the Archbishop. If you cannot follow the Archbishop who was appointed by the Pope, then what makes you think you can follow the pope?


  12. Dear Diana. St. Francis is the door to humility.
    I like Pope Francis and I do follow him.
    I go to Mass daily pray my prayers.
    I do social work.
    I am a believer.
    I know God is with me. I know I'm going to heaven.
    I know I'm among the elected to enter eternity.
    I don't need Archbishop Apuron for salvation.
    Archbishop Apuron is history on island now.
    I am an obedient Catholic.
    The Holy Spirit guides me.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 11:54 am,

      When a person says that they know they are going to Heaven, he/she already committed a sin. It is the sin of presumption.

    2. Who is the boss of Pope Francis? Is it really Tim Rohr?

      Dear Anon, if you like our Pope then it is time for you to distance yourself from JW, CCOG and LFM. Tim Rohr just declared his contempt for Pope Francis on the occasion of an interview the Pope gave on the Zika virus threat.

      Tim talks as the "boss" of Pope Francis, making judgment and accusations against him. An inflated prick is humiliating and lecturing the Pope about how to be a good Catholic… Lol! Who is the insane here? Read below with my comments.

      Tim says: "Here is where Francis either makes a huge error or permits a real slip of an agenda many are beginning to suspect."

      So Pope Francis must have a "secret agenda" that Tim begins to suspect. Wow, wow, wow! What this agenda could be that our hero with his incredible intellectual power just begins to suspect?

      Tim continues: "This was either an absolute misreading of the historical context, or Francis has let slip his desire to liberate the Church from that which he is not authorized to liberate."

      Aha, Pope Francis liberates the Catholic Church from some mysterious thing that he has no authority to liberate from. What this thing could be? He has no authority to do what he does. Ouch, this get really bad… Is this the ultimate charge against him?

      Tim explains: "I know the finer point of what the pope is trying to say, but on its face, the pope's comment just gave justification to the liberal's calls to "keep your religion out of my life." "

      Ha-ha! Not everybody can understand the Pope, but luckily, we have a bright genius in Tim Rohr who easily decodes all finer points. How good for us, poor souls? So Pope Francis not only liberates, he is even a full blood liberal, according to the charge, because he dares to talk about the separate realms of medicine and religion. Wow again, is this not far-fetched a bit, dear Tim?

      Tim does not give up: "I personally do not think (yet) that the pope is intending mischief. I think he simply talks too much and without much thinking."

      Oh yeah? The Pope does not intend mischief: yet?! Really? He is simply waiting for Tim Rohr to lift up the disguise and show him, Pope Francis, in his true color as a liberal trouble maker whose only desire is mischief that he will commit as soon as he has a chance? Goodness me, are you serious in going down to the kindergarden level?

      But well, you see, Tim is a good person, after all. He pats on his own back. Because he is truly merciful with the Pope! He allows that the Pope is simply talking silly. Of course he, Tim Rohr, is on alert and he caught the Pope on time before he could go into real mischief. How wonderful it is that we have this hero around! Tim saved the world again from a “blubber-mouth” Pope who knows not what he is talking about!

      It is the message of Tim, in a nut shell. He acts as is he is the boss not only of Pope Francis but even of the whole Catholic world! Maybe, we should start bowing down and worship Tim because he is just such a modest person with gentleness and humility in his heart. Lol!


    3. Dear Anonymous at 3:28 pm,

      Actually, what I find vey disturbing is what Tim said in the following:

      "Next, it is sad that the pope compares abortion to "what the Mafia does." The Mafia may kill people, but there is nothing to compare to the direct killing of a victim who is as helpless and innocent as an unborn child. Equating abortion with the Mafia knocking off people who get in their way radically devalues the Catholic teaching that there are different degrees of sin. Obviously the killing of an unborn child, unable to scream or run, is grossly more serious than the mob knocking off a drug dealer for blowing a deal. But now, according to Pope Francis, it is not. This is very dangerous and such a comparison gravely undermines the effort to bring attention to the dignity and innocence of the unborn child."

      The Catholic Church teaches that ALL human life is sacred. It never taught that the life of the unborn child is more sacred than another human being. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that every human life from the moment of conception until death is sacred (See CCC 2319).


  13. Diana . The answer you gave to 11. 54am is simply untrue. Failed understanding of Catholic teaching. You are guilty of sin of presumption by a total lack of pastoral sensitivity towards the commenter. The lady said she is a daily Mass attender. She prays the rosary . She does social work corporal works of mercy . She is focused on her God salvation. I also believe in what she says. I'm also going to heaven. Heaven already begun for me for I live in the presence of God every second. I am with God . So please stop spreading your church theology in our catholic church.
    At the same time the pope said in Mexico Archbishop should stop hanging out with the rich and serve the poor. Archbishop does not serve the poor. He is an evil heartless man.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 3:26 pm,

      First of all, how do you know she is a lady?

      Secondly, how did you expert her to go to Heaven when she already condemned the Archbishop. Christ told us not to judge or condemn anyone. Do you honestly think that people who judge others end up in Heaven? Is that how the Holy Spirit guiding this person?

      Finally, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says to obey and submit to your Church leaders. The Pope is our Church leader, and it was the pope who appointed our Archbishop. How do you expect to follow the Pope if you cannot even follow the person whom the Pope appointed????

      And who are you to judge the Archbishop as an evil heartless man? Do not compare Guam's Archbishop to the one in Mexico. They are not the same man.


  14. Diana during past week you have insulted dedicated laymen and women on Guam.
    All of this has been passed to the Apostolkc delegate and to the Holy See.
    I ask to to graciously show kindness to men and women like 3.26pm. Show a little kindness.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 11:17 pm,

      You can send my entire blog to the Apostolic delegate and to the Holy See if you want. Simply give them the weblink.

      I fail to see how it is okay for someone to condemn the Archbishop as an evil heartless man; yet, it is not okay for me to ask Anonymous how he/she can obey the pope when he/she cannot even obey a person appointed by the pope or how he/she can manage to get to heaven when Jesus told us not to judge and condemn.

  15. Since when has a commenter described Archbishop Apuron as "evil heartless man"?
    It is you telling us these words Diana. We don't know this was said. But you tell readers it was proclaimed. Do you see the problem Diana? It is you spreading insults around that causes conflict on island between Archbishop Jungle.
    I believe Archbishop is heartless that is true. He caused tremendous damage to our island community. He also committed evil acts against our families community. However, we don't say it. You do. My advise to you ms. Diana of whoever you are is to discover a Spirotual life and search for God. You clearly do not live in the spirit. Praying for you. sis Jen & br mar salt & Light community.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 8:34 am,

      See comment February 19, 2016 at 3:26 pm. I told the commenter not to compare Guam's Archbishop to the Archbishop of Mexico because they are not the same man.

      And then there is your own comment in which you admit to the same thing.