Wednesday, December 28, 2016

A Tree Of Life

Mr. Chuck White once again offers his own interpretation.  He misconstrued the lecture of Steven Ray in order to discredit all renewals within the Catholic Church.  According to the transcript found in Thoughtful Catholic:
"But I said that the oak tree doesn’t look like the acorn. It doesn’t look what the apostles started. That was just a little tree. But God never intended the acorn and the little tree to stay a little tree! You don’t plant a tree to only grow this tall!
When you plant an acorn you want it to grow into a beautiful tree, and that what the Church did and of courseit’s going to look different today then it did in the first century. I would expect it would. When I look at my baby pictures, I look very different now than I did when I was a baby. I have about the same amount of hair! <<laughter>> But other things look different."
In no way is Steven Ray saying that the renewals and movements in the Catholic Church are a fake.  Mr. Steven Ray described how the Catholic Church grew from a very small seed to a huge tree that some people today do NOT recognize that small seed it once was.  He goes on to describe his baby pictures. In no way does he look like his baby pictures today, but the baby in those pictures is still him.  He simply grew into an adult.

In the same way, some people do not recognize the small seed that was once the Catholic Church, but it is STILL the very SAME church that is now a huge tree.  

It is true God never intended that small seed to remain a small seed or a little tree.  He intended that seed to grow into a huge tree.  However, God also never intended that tree to remain a dead tree, producing no fruits. He intended the tree to produce fruits of nourishment, which is what the renewals and other movements in the Church does.  


  1. Well done, Diana! :)

  2. the ncw always says the ncw is not for everyone, i agree, so how does the ncw expect to produce fruits of nourishment, when not everyone is a fit to be in the ncw???

    1. Dear Anonymous at 11:36 am,

      One does not need to produce fruits through the NCW. There are many organizations in the Church such as Youth Ministry, Legion of Mary, Knights of Columbus, Charismatic Renewal, the Cursillios, etc. Take your pick.

    2. but you are here pushing the ncw, well aware of others on island, I belong to one, I've seen announcements to an event, only to find out its by the ncw, so why does the ncw need to disguise the event???

    3. Dear Anonymous at 3:01 pm,

      Where in my posts and my comments did I say that a person MUST join the NCW?

    4. Anonymous December 28, 2016 at 11:36 AM
      Who said not everyone is "fit"? Everyone is fit, but not everyone likes it, wants it, chooses it, therefore, the NCW is not for everyone. It is only for those who want it. It is as if one would say, the train to Tokyo is not for everyone, it is only for those who want to go to Tokyo and want to go by train. No one says that there are people who are unfit to get on the train, but they might not want to go to Tokyo or want to go there by another means of transportation.

      So, if you want to become a Christian and would like to do it by means of a post-baptismal catechumenate which is offered by Holy Mother Church in the NCW, well then the NCW is for you. Some people say, "I am already a Christian." Obviously, the NCW is not for them. Others might say, "I don't want to be a Christian." The NCW is not for them either. Should one of them discover that he or she is not as Christian as he/she thought, or change one's mind about wanting to be Christian, the NCW will become a viable option, if one chooses it in freedom. That is what I did, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity.
      Why would it bother you that it is offered to others as well?
      Peace to you from around the globe.

  3. "which is what the renewals and other movements in the Church does", so you do admit the ncw is a movement...

    1. nice attempt to misdirect Diana's answer anonymous dec 28th at 11:40.

      no answer will suffice your understanding or change your reasoning about the fruits of faith.

      to the point; its like a little tree that never grows.

  4. Diana, why publish comments like 11:40am? They should just be ignored. It's like a one hit wonder on repeat.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 11:09 pm,

      Ever since I published this post "A Tree of Life" in response to Chuck White's post on "The Oak Tree", I have been getting a lot of insults, and personal attacks rather than discussing the topic of discussion.

      I understand that the jungle even put up THREE posts mentioning my name after I published this post. This post must have gotten under their skin for some reason.

      11:40 am was published to show readers that it is not only Chuck White who misconstrues the dialogue with the intent to distract people from the truth. The entire jungle uses the same propaganda.

  5. Part 1
    The problem is not the growth of the tree the problem is that the growth of the tree has been blocked by situations in the church that have required a response.
    In the history of salvation God elects a people and purifies their faith getting them ready for the messiah. When the messiah arrives their faith has been purified to such extent that sacrifices are no longer the center of their faith but the Seder becomes the center of their faith.
    So for a Jew when Christ celebrates the last supper (the seder) it is very easy to understand what Christ is saying.
    The Jews celebrate the passing of the hand of God throughout their history. The passing from their situation of death to life. Escape from egypt, no time for leaven in their bread. Winter to spring, no level produced yet. Which is why for them the unleavened bread signifies situations of death. When explaining the Seder to their family they always uncover the unleavened when explaining slavery, Egypt, Pharaoh etc and giving examples in their own lives. The wine always signifies life and joy.
    So historical when Christ celebrates the seder in the last supper he changes the content of the signs. "this is no longer the bread of egypt but my body which gives itself to death. This is no longer the cup of the promise but my blood given up to give everlasting life.
    For a Jew is was easy to understand this because they are taught throughout their life. However for a Goaim (pagan) he has to be taught. So the early church had a catechumenate to teach them the history of salvation before they could be baptized. In essence this is the NCW.
    However God allowed a devolution if we can call it that. In 312 AD Constantine converted to Christianity. Being the faith of the empire it was important to be Christian, so many people brought in their own traditions from pagan religions into Christianity obscuring the center of Christianity which is the death and resurrection of Christ which opens the door for us to eternal life (to love the enemy, because those who are not afraid of dieing can love the enemy).
    The church in its wisdom allowed it to happen, also because they did not have resources to give the catechumenate to all men. So as a good for those who converted the church saw it as the will of God.
    However because of this the church began to receive new interpretation and become corrupt slowly. With things like indulgences, heavy penences which did not equate to the sin etc. Clergy would sell indulgences and rich would pay people to do their penence. The corruption was what led protestant reformations. The problem of protestant reformation is they thought the church was corrupt (sound like anyone you know JW nation) so they'd break from tradition and only interprete the bible because it was unchanged by the corruption of the church. The problem is that without tradition and proper contextualizing the bible anyone can make their own interpretation. Hence why there are so many sects.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 2:42 am,

      I accidentally deleted the part 2 of your comment, so I copied and pasted it here. I apologized for my quick fingers:

      Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "A Tree Of Life":

      Part 2
      The church as a response to this situation had the council of Trenton so as to avoid further misinterpretations and maintain the core of the Christianity/Catholicism. (So that the tree still looks like an acorn tree and not some malformed mutation) The council of Trenton is where the church makes latin the official and only language of Mass, and where the liturgy is no longer said for the people but with the priest facing away from the people. It is not bad, but a way for the church to protect itself.
      The church stayed like this till the Second Vatican Council. Where because of the advances and science and the general increased knowledge of individuals world wide we get what is called secularizm. Where a magical sence of religion is not enough to help the people of today. So in the 2vc the church calls for a return of the catechumenate. A return to the language of the people, the priest facing the people.
      The NCW is an answer of the holy spirit to the 2nd Vatican Council which enacts the council and brings it to the people. Allowing individuals to live their faith. It still maintains a lot of the traditions brought throughout the centuries but with an emphasis on the Eucharist of the primitive church and the assembly as the body of Christ. So that the assembly or no longer spectators but participants.
      So if anything the NCW can be viewed as the maturity of acorn to a full acorn tree and not a mutation of it.

    2. 2:42am: I didn't know that. Thank you for sharing.

    3. Anonymous @ 2:42 AM where or from whom did you learn about the council of Trenton???

    4. 1:03pm: Why didn't you just point out the correction?

    5. Anonymous @ 2:27 AM I've submitted corrections with supporting links in the past but they're not approved for publication.
      Whenever I submit a correction without a link Diana will publish it and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about because I'm not walking.
      So I figured since Diana approved 2:42 AM's comment without correcting the "council of Trenton" it must have been another neo teaching that I'm not privy to.

    6. Dear Anonymous at 10:12 am,

      All you had to do is say, "I believe you meant 'Council of Trent.'" You do need to even post a link.

    7. as the writer for anon 2:42am
      I apologies for the typos and grammatical errors. Having written the above comment in a small box from a cell phone autocorrect is my enemy. I did indeed mean the Council of Trent.
      Again my apologies.
      P.S. The historical information is correct though.

    8. Everyone makes mistakes. I think most would have understood you meant the Council of Trent.

  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  7. JW is changing its main goal. They want to make an impact on Vatican and they want to influence who can be the next Pope! If their acting has been foolish so far, now it is becoming outright ridiculous!

    AnonymousDecember 26, 2016 at 9:43 PM

    Our Mission, should you decide to accept it, Mr. Phelps, is to expose Cardinal Filoni, the Prefect for the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples in the Vatican, and their evil deeds on Guam. He is not to be the next Pope. Mission: NOT Impossible!


    1. Fights in Management Dynamics of Junglewatch. Split.

    2. Anon @ 3:46 PM have you never heard of satire???

    3. Rohr cannot stand his anti-NCW allies like Austin OE from England and Daniel Lifschitz from Italy who speak much smarter and more eloquently than he ever could. His envy and jealousy is speaking volumes about his troubled sense of inferiority. JW's blunt no-nonsense style is promptly ridiculed by these and other heavyweight activists. The antipathy between the local Guamanian ruses and their international advisors seems to be mutually irreconcilable. Both sides fight for control of the same anti-NCW conspiracy.

    4. Anonymous @ 12:08 PM if Rohr "cannot stand his anti-NCW allies" like you said why would he bother to approve and publish their comments? He could be like Diana who doesn't publish comments that are smarter or more eloquent than what she comes up with. If anyone has a "sense of inferiority" it sure isn't Rohr. Diana's "sense of inferiority" keeps her from approving and publishing comments that are better than hers.
      You're right that JW has a blunt no-nonsense style but at least the content is factual.

    5. Dear Anonymous at 2:09 pm,

      As the blog administrator, the right to publish or delete comments is my decision. I have publish comments I do not agree so long as it is not vulgar or insulting, and as long as it does not deviate too much from the OP. I prefer civil discourse rather than the know-it-all arrogance that leaves no room for decent dialogue.

    6. Anon 2:09 pm, JW only publishes critical comments that do not measure up. I have never seen any substance of quality allowed at JW!

      Rohr just kicked out Daniel Lifschitz from his blog 2 days ago yelling at him that JW is to publish Rohr's point of view only and nothing but that! The next one might be Austin OE, by all means. Lapaz will remain because he never misses to pay lickety lick lip service and accolades to Rohr. LOL

    7. Diana, it is not a rule that you have to trim comments. You have an option to turn off moderation altogether. It is your choice to screen and delete comments that you don't like by your own wish.

    8. Anonymous @ 6:34 PM it's clear that like Diana you put your own neo spin on whatever you see in JW. You claim that Rohr "kicked out" Daniel Lifschitz but what actually happened can be seen in the following exchange between Rohr and Daniel:

      TimDecember 24, 2016 at 7:24 AM
      Dear Daniel, while we respect your work in exposing the Neocatechumenal Way for what it really is, your judgement on JungleWatch authors, especially when it comes to the intricacies of our local struggle, and especially when it comes to Frenchie who knows Adrian's intimate history, is not appreciated. This is one of the reasons why, despite the help you can give us, will not invite you to Guam.

      Daniel Alexander LifschitzDecember 27, 2016 at 6:09 AM
      I understand: The people, like Tim and others, who control the comments,are not interested in a real fruitful discussion. If my two replys will not be published, I must leave "Junglewatch" , because your methods are the same of the NCW, and will abstain me in future to interveene in your Blog.

      I will follow your "Jungle", because I am interested in news about Guam, but I was shat uppet, and obeiing your methods, I will shat up.

      Anyhow, who nows? If Bishop Byrnes calls me to Guam, I hope you will better yoursectarian behaviour and help together to rebuilt Guams catholic Church.

      Daniel Lifschitz
      A Happy new Year, with Mary and Jesus,

      Daniel Lifschitz

      Pleas publish the last three replays

      TimDecember 27, 2016 at 6:46 AM
      This blog is about what I think. If you want a blog about what you think then start one.

      As you can see Rohr's reason for not approving Daniel's missing comments is because Daniel judged one of the regular JW authors.
      And if you took the time to read what was actually written you would notice that Rohr didn't kick Daniel out. Daniel said he would not comment anymore.
      And Tim DIDN'T YELL (like I just did) when he replied to Daniel like you claimed. He didn't write in all capital letters which is the sign of "yelling".
      Like I said you can spin your version of JW here but the truth can be seen if you take the time to read what was actually published.

    9. Dear anon at 8:42 am, you are telling only one half of the truth! Why? It is no wonder, you are coming from JW, after all. Daniel Lifschitz did not "judge" Frenchie, he only disagreed. When Frenchie went against Ab Byrnes in accusing him with all kind of bad things because Fr. Adrian was sent to further studies, Lifschitz had to this:

      by Daniel Lifschitz:

      Daniel LifschitzDecember 24, 2016 at 6:36 AM

      Dear Frenchie,

      I have the impression you are to quick in your judgements and also too arrogant. Can't you understand that Bishop Byrnes has with his decision obtained two points:

      1. don Christobal leaves the island and is out of Guam for almost 4 years.
      2. Bishop Byrnes gives Cristobal the chance of a new beginning outside of the hostility that now in Guam would anyhow surround him.

      This was merciful from Bishop Byrnes. Now it is up to Cristobal to show himself worth of this trust.

      Happy Christmas in Mary and Jesus,

      Daniel Lifschitz

      Where is the judgement here? Why the heightened emotions? Rohr started to yell immediately at him! You have the wrong idea about capitalization of letters, my friend. Yes, yelling cannot only be expressed by capitalization, but by other means, as well! The emotional content and the perceived intention of the utterance also indicate elevated voice.

      by Tim Rohr:

      TimDecember 27, 2016 at 6:46 AM

      This blog is about what I think. If you want a blog about what you think then start one.

      This unmitigated arrogance is pure and loud yelling by an individual of a badly hurt ego! Rohr made it clear that Frenchie is a "holy cow" for him and he won't tolerate any alternative opinion from his own. The way he makes his points prevalent at his blog is by excluding all others'. Lol. Daniel had no choice but to say goodbye!

      by Daniel Lifschitz:

      Daniel Alexander LifschitzDecember 28, 2016 at 4:35 AM

      Dear Tim,

      My idea about blogs is that they do need a direction, but that they shall give also voice to other opinions, if they are not disturbing the trend of the blog.

      I think this was my case. Arrivederci a Guam!

      Daniel Lifschitz

      Judge yourself, please, if this exchange caused Mr. Lifschitz to leave JW or not. What would you have done in his place? The fact that Frenchie was unable to defend his attack on Ab Byrnes and Rohr had to interfere to protect him from humiliation shows that an inferiority complex is at work here. The arch-conservative naysayers inside the Catholic Church have an undeniable intellectual lagging behind those who are willing and capable to move forward.

    10. Dear Anonymous at 2:30,
      Because the written word leaves much to perception by the reader, there are certain precepts that 'govern' blog writings--one being the acceptance of the all caps significance. As anonymous 8:42, I did not perceive there to be yelling in Rohr's comment.
      He just plain and simply stated that he didn't like Daniel's statements and told him if he wanted to start his own blog he could do so.
      As owners of blogs Diana and Rohr have the right to select what is published...and we as readers just have to go with what they decide is worthy. On their blogs, their opinions lead and set the tone.
      Many of my comments have not been published on both blogs....I could only guess at the reason.
      So, let the reader beware!!
      Happy New Year, my fellow Catholics! And I pray that the Holy Spirit guide Archbishop Byrnes as he navigates among the different perceptions that will be presented to him!

  8. Diana, I don't see where Chuck White said that "renewals and movements in the Catholic Church are a fake", as you stated. Where did he say that?