Personally, I have always believed that the zero-tolerance approach to clergy sex abuse by the entire USCCB, and adapted for our own diocese, is stupid.That is correct, ladies and gentlemen! You heard it straight from the horse's mouth. The Archbishop simply copied the policy from the USCCB exactly as Tim Rohr stated in his blog. Therefore, the sex policy was never made weak by Archbishop Apuron nor was it written by Archbishop Apuron.
This policy was never made weak by Archbishop Apuron because the Archdiocese copied the same policy. This policy also did not favor any bishop accused of sex abuse. Why? Because according to Tim, the policy says that an accused bishop must remove himself. Tim Rohr stated in his Blog:
Thus, Archbishop Apuron, by virtue of his own policy and his own example of its implementation, MUST REMOVE HIMSELF and permit an independent investigation to move forward."By virtue of his own policy......"That is correct, ladies and gentlemen! You heard it straight from the horse's mouth. Therefore you ask....how is it that the sex abuse policy was made weak? The truth shows that the goal of the jungle is simply to demonize Archbishop Apuron however they can even if it means to change their song and dance.
For those who wish to make comments under this post, please stick to the OP. This post shows that Archbishop Apuron did not weaken the Archdiocesan sex policy because (as Tim Rohr admitted in 2014) it was a copy and paste of the USCCB. Perhaps, the policy devised by the USCCB was weak in itself, but Archbishop Apuron did not purposely made the policy weak. Why? Because he was not the one who created the policy in the first place. The Archdiocese adapted it from the USCCB exactly as Tim Rohr himself stated.
This war is so sad. It can only end 2 ways. Either JW accepts the NCW (since the church has already approved it as church doctrine). Or the JW does what Martin Luther did when HE thought the Church was corrupt. He made his own Church according to his own doctrine. We know how that ended, the Pope's are still trying to form peace and amend. If there is love for the church and indeed there was a scandal it could of definitely have been handled with more charity. Not the complete lack of love shown by the JW. It's a prime example of #fakenews.
ReplyDeleteIt appears that Diana has allowed this comment by Anon @ 12:27 PM to be published even though it doesn't address the "Archdiocesan sex policy" so I hope Diana will allow my response to Anon @ 12:27.
DeleteAnon @ 12:27 PM, if you knew what the Catholic Church teaches then you would know that the Pope approved the NCW statutes but DID NOT APPROVE the NCW as "CHURCH DOCTRINE." Also if you knew Church history you would be able to recognize how closely the teachings of the NCW mirror those of Martin Luther. As Diana has pointed out Tim Rohr attends the Latin Mass at the Friary. Again if you knew Church history you would know that until 1969 ALL Masses were said in Latin with the priest turned away from the people. So the Mass Tim Rohr attends is centuries older than the one NCW members attend. if anyone is making "his own Church according to his own doctrine" it is Kiko Arguello.
As before I really don't expect Diana to publish this but I thought I'd respond to your error-filled comment that did not stick to the OP.
Dear Reality Check,
DeleteThe previous comment dealt with the OP because he/she mentioned the "fake news", referring to the stories that constantly changes in the jungle.
Your comment, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the OP, but I allowed it to address something once and for all.
The Catechetical Directory, which contained the Catechises of the NCW has been approved by the Church. That is the truth.
Furthermore, if you knew your church history, the Mass Tim Rohr attends is NOT the original Mass instituted by Christ with His Apostles. That original Mass had Christ facing His Apostles and speaking in Aramic, NOT LATIN.
Diana @ 1:42 pm: I don't think Reality Check @ 1:00 pm was saying Tim Rohr attends the "original Mass" but that the Mass he attends is "centuries older than the one NCW members attend."
DeleteBut I do know from what I have read and also heard on Catholic Answers that at the "original Mass" Christ WASN'T "facing His Apostles" because He and His Apostles were RECLINING (on their left sides) on the same side of the semi-circle table.
Dear Anonymous at 6:10 pm,
DeleteFirst of all, the liturgy that the NCW mainly follows is much older than the Traditional Mass. The Ambrosian rite is a western rite liturgy that goes back to the 4th century. The Latin Mass only goes back to the year 1570.
As for the original Eucharist started by Christ, they were indeed reclining, but they did not have their backs turned toward each other. The Apostles were looking at Christ as he broke bread and said, "Take this for this is my body." Christ was Jewish, celebrating the Last Supper, which the Jews called the Passover feast.
the liturgy that NCW must follow is the Roman Rite as specified by your own Statutes.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 8:51 pm,
DeleteThe Ambrosian rite is a Roman rite.
Sorry,dear Diana, but you are wrong and need to be corrected. The Ambrosian Rite is a Latin Rite. The Roman Rite is also a Latin Rite. The NCW to Follow the Roman Rite, not the Ambrosian Rite or some other Latin Rite.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 1:54 pm,
DeleteYour comment does not make any sense. There are 9 liturgies in the Roman rite. The Ambrosian is one of those 9 Roman rites. Who are you to tell the NCW which Roman rite is to be followed? Are you the Pope?
"There are 9 liturgies in the Roman rite"
DeleteWhere do you get this from? There are two forms of the Roman Rite - the Tridentine and the Novus Ordo.
The Ambrosian Rite is a Latin Rite of the Gallican type.
You should refrain from speaking when you lack the required knowledge. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrosian_Rite
Note the following section:
"Differences from the Roman Rite
Some features of the Ambrosian Rite distinguish it from the Roman Rite liturgy."
So, the Ambrosian Rite is not a type of Roman Rite, but a separate Rite that is distinct from the Roman Rite. If the NCW was to follow the Ambrosian Rite, it would be clearly stated in its Statutes. Instead, the Statutes clearly state that the NCW is to follow the Roman Rite.
Now, where did you get this "9 liturgies in the Roman Rite". Perhaps you can post a link or cite a source?
Dear Anonymous at 12:34 am,
DeleteI apologized. I previously said that there were 9 Roman rites. There appears to be 8 of them. The Roman rite includes 1) Roman, 2) Ambrosian, 3) Carmelite, 4) Mozarabic, 5) Bragan, 6) Carthusian, 7) Dominican, and 8) the corrected form of the Anglican use.
http://ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm
Once again, you are wrong. The article you cited refers to the Roman/Latin "family" of Liturgical rites. This is exactly what I was referring to previously. So, you say " The Roman rite includes 1) Roman, 2) Ambrosian, 3) Carmelite, 4) Mozarabic, 5) Bragan, 6) Carthusian, 7) Dominican, and 8) the corrected form of the Anglican use. "
DeleteAnd this is incorrect. If you said "The Roman/Latin family of Liturgical Rites includes" etc you would have been correct. you can see that your list includes the "Roman" rite. How can the "Roman rite" include the "Roman Rite"?
What you mean to say is that the Roman Rite is one of the Latin faimly of rites, which also includes the Ambrosian, Carmelite etc.
The Statutes of the NCW do NOT say that the NCW conducts its Eucharist according to the Roman/Latin "family" of rites, but rather, the "Roman Rite" which is the first on your list.
This is reminiscent of your weak attempt to justify the supposed "concelebration" of Mass by laity in the NCW, because you prefer to understand the term "concelebration" in a way that is no longer used.
You may wish to confer with your catechist, who, if they have any integrity, will confirm what I am saying.
Happy Christmas.
Dear Anonymous at 2:28 pm,
DeleteWhat else did you think I was referring to when I mentioned the Ambrosian rite????? The Vatican approved the change in the Way we do the sign of peace. The way we do the sign of peace is the same as the Ambrosian rite, which is also a Roman rite. This change is in our Statutes, and the Vatican is aware that this is an Ambrosian rite.
You don't get it. The Ambrosian Rite is not a "Roman Rite", but rather it is one in a family of rites known collectively as the "Latin rites", "Western rites" or the "Roman family of rites".
DeleteJust to confirm your misunderstanding, the NCW Statutes state:
" For the celebration of the Eucharist in the small communities the approved liturgical books of the Roman Rite are followed,"
"The Roman rite", not "any of the Roman (or Western or Latin family of) rites".
You know this interiorly, of course, but deny it explicitly because you think it supports your anomalous liturgy. It doesn't.
And this was reinforced by Pope Benedict when he referred to following the Liturgical books of the Roman Rite. He never once mentioned the Ambrosian Rite, nor does the Statute mention it. Why not? Because the Roman Rite is distinct from the Ambrosian rite, both of which are of the Western family of liturgical rites.
Dear Anonymous at 3:08 pm,
DeleteWe are not going to follow YOUR interpretation. We are going to follow the interpretation given to us straight from the Vatican. If you have a problem with how we celebrate the Eucharist, you do not need to attend our celebrations or you can write to Rome. Take your pick.
In the Ambrosian rite the sign of peace occurs prior to the offertory. In the Roman rite it occurs prior to the Agnes Dei. In fact, the Ambrosian rite omits the Agnes Dei.
DeleteThe Statutes of the NCW mention the movement of the sign of peace to occur prior to the offertory, however, this could only be an explicit concession if the NCW were not already following the Ambrosian rite.
Also, the NCW has been instructed to include the Agnes Dei in their Eucharistic liturgy.
I guess this proves that you are actuallymeant to follow the ordinary form of the Roman Rite, but i expect you won't post this comment so nevermind.
Still I wonder whether you have thought this up on your own, or whether your leaders have fed you this erroneous logic?
That doesn't prove anything dear Diana. The fact remains that the NCW Statutes direct that the NCW follows the liturgical books of the Roman rite with the exception that the sign of peace is moved and that communion is received "remaining in their place". That's it.
DeleteThat the sign of oeace occurring before the offertory is considered an "concession", means that the Statutes are not referring to the Ambrosian rite, which would need no "concession" for the sign of peace to occur then.
You didn't answer my final question. I guess you have been told another falsehood. And I guess, once again, you have swallowed it without exercising your own faculty of reason.
Dear Anonymous at 9:28 pm,
DeleteI was in the Way since 2006. The NCW was ALREADY following the Ambrosian rite. I saw the changes that took place before and after 2008 when the statutes were approved. According to an article dated 2006:
"The Neo-catechumenate communities, like the Ambrosian rite, give the sign of peace before the offertory. Cardinal Arinze informs the Neo-catechumenate leaders that they may continue this practice. The group had previously received an indult from the Vatican for this practice, and the Congregation for Divine Worship said that indult would remain in effect "pending further instructions."
http://www.timesofmalta.com/mobile/articles/view/20060115/religion/a-vatican-rebuke-to-the-neo-catechumenal-way.66356
The NCW was allowed to keep everything they did with a few exceptions made by the Holy See.
ear Anonymous at 11:29 pm,
DeleteIt does mean a lot. For example, what concession?????? A concession telling us to do something that we have already been doing is pointless. In other words, the concession did not change anything.
The only real change was in receiving Holy Communion. We are to stand to receive the Body of Christ. They did not even change the part where the priest takes Communion with the entire assembly. It remains the same.
There is a mention in the Statutes of 2008 regarding moving the sign of peace, isn't there? So, you were doing this prior to 2008, as per the ad experimentum Statutes, but still in the definitive Statutes there is an explicit reference to the particular permission to move the sign of peace.
DeleteWhy then, is there no mention of consuming communion together with the priest? Because there is no permission to do so. Even if you were doing this prior to the promulgation of the definitive Statutes, just as you were with the sign of peace, it makes no sense to assume you have permission to continue to do so.
The Statutes clearly explain what is permitted and what is not. In other words, the movement of the sign of peace is permitted, even though the Statutes direct the NCW to follow the liturgical books of the ROman Rite (not the AMbrosian Rite), and there is explicit mention of "remaining in place" as you had been previously doind, but no mention of simultaneous communion.
It is interesting that the article you cite quotes Mr Gennarini speaking about the sign of peace.
"Gennarini says that "to understand the magnitude of this concession, we must remember that only a few weeks before the signing of this letter, the prefect of the congregation had explained to hundreds of bishops attending the Synod on the Eucharist that no one would be allowed to change the place of the sign of peace. In fact, several bishops' conferences had requested such a variation, but it has never been allowed."
Now - note the bold above - if the NCW was ligitimately following the Ambrosian Rite, it would already be acceptable, and yet Gennarini was emphasizing that this was indeed a huge novelty.
So, are you going to argue with Mr Gennarini? Or will you finally accept you are wrong about the Ambrosian rite?
Dear Anonymous at 4:54 pm,
DeleteThe "Immaculate Conception" was pronounced a dogma in 1854 by Pope Pius XI despite the fact that the Catholic faithful ALREADY believed in the Immaculate Conception for centuries prior to 1854. That is how the Catholic Church works. So, yes....the NCW had already been practicing the Ambrosian rite even before the sign of peace was in the approved statutes. I provided an article dated in 2006 as evidence of that.
If you still believe that we are not following our Statutes, then write your letter of complaint to Rome. The NCW was already investigated for the complaints you bring forth, and Pope Francis ceased the investigations because the accusations were unfounded. But you are free to write and tell the Pope to open the investigation again. Then let us see if he will listen to you.
Dear Anon at 1:00pm
ReplyDeleteIf you knew the history of the Church you would know the first Eucharist as described by St. Justin Martyr in 155AD is very different from the latin mass centuries later. Is the latin mass consequentially heretical because it is not as the first christians celebrated it?
Martin Luther's problem is he not only challenged the church but consciously broke from it in disobedience to Rome. Much like JW is on verge of doing against 2nd Vatican Council.
I think Deacon Larry should at least entertained Toves' sex allegations. It was a mistake on Deacon Larry's part. If he had done that, the Archdiocese can invalidate his claim because 1) Toves never spoke to his cousin, 2) Toves never learned about the sex allegations from his cousin, but from someone else who probably heard it from someone else, 3) his cousin never came forward, and 4) Toves never witnessed any sexual abuse by Apuron. When Toves admitted all this in the media, the media never paid much attention to him after that.
ReplyDeleteChristmas peace Love.
ReplyDeletejungle nation spreads hate .
pray for Jungle nation.
plot against Archdiocese
ReplyDeleteGroup of seven be aware of.
Dear Anonymous at 8:02 pm,
DeleteCould you be more specific?