An anonymous poster alerted my attention to the following that was printed in today's Pacific Daily News:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A local TV show, "The Buzz," recently featured the new organization Concerned Catholics Inc. Comments rooted in misinformation about the Neocathecumenal Way were made by Greg Perez, the guest, and Jesse Lujan, the host.
I, too, am a concerned, practicing Catholic. I am involved in the Way, a charism approved by the Catholic Church since 2004. The Way helps me "walk the talk" of being a Catholic, a Christian; a walk that is not easy. I have never left the Church. In fact, the Way has helped deepen my faith.
Unfounded statements made during the show include that the Way practices and teaches a different cathechism of faith and that it is causing a division within the Church. A written reply is insufficient to address these and other one-sided remarks as they can easily be misinterpreted. But a dialogue with those of us in the Way, instead of listening only to critics, might be a more adequate approach to address concerns.
Based on personal experience and direct observation, the Way is undeniably an important, additional, Catholic vehicle helping many to discover or re-discover the power and presence of Christ in their lives.
These are some observations:
• Most Concerned Catholics board members seem to be affiliated with known critics of the archbishop. Have members considered the possibility that they have been triangulated by factions who have separate issues with the Church?
• Seemingly, the goal of this new group is to get rid of the archbishop. Will there be any effort towards an objective review of issues?
• How about seeking input from those actively in the Way for balanced perspectives? Otherwise, not all concerned Catholics in Guam are represented.
• How will others know of the opportunity to provide feedback?
• What criteria is being used to determine the factors that are "dividing" the Church?
Have they looked at testimonies from people who have, in fact, returned to the Catholic faith or have converted to Catholicism because of the Way? Have they listened to those who have experienced healing from abusive backgrounds, addictions, and from spiritless lives and those who have been helped to reconcile from estranged relationships, including with God?
Will they look at the numbers of those who have answered the call to religious life, sacramental marriages, openness to life, church ministry, itinerancy or mission life? Can they objectively look at the parishes that have publicly denounced the Way saying that they do not want "us" in their parishes? Can they agree that rejection, prejudice and discrimination against those who choose other paths to spiritual growth are factors that destroy any community?
What about the disrespectful discourses in some of the social media perpetuated by some who profess to defend our Catholic faith? Will they review those websites and assess how name-calling, derision and mockery is a source of divisiveness?
What does it say about the ethics of person(s) and organization(s) that underhandedly and secretively video tape spiritual gatherings then slant and distort images and information against the speakers and the people gathered in faith? These behaviors are unethical and immoral.
Do they endorse that type of information gathering?
• Is a campaign of hate and bigotry targeted toward those in the Way conducive to building Church?
• Some critics refuse to accept the rightful authority of the Vatican Council in its endorsement of the Way. By whose authority will Concerned Catholics base their decisions with regards to the Neocathecumenal practice of the Catholic faith? Will they accept the authority of the Vatican Council?
What our community needs is a diversely represented organization to facilitate healing. Rather than fault-finding, instead acknowledge the strengths in our faith community and identify areas for improvement. Strengths in Guam's overall Catholic community include the following: There are now more Catholics who have become attuned to the "Word of God" by virtue of the Neocathecumenate celebration of scripture. Because of this focus, some Non-Neocathecumenate Catholics have also joined Bible study groups to quench their thirst. Many parishes are working to build "community," recognizing that the "lack of community" leads many to leave the "physical" churches and discover other paths to Catholicism/Christianity. Individuals, like myself, have dug our heels deeper and have recommitted to "walk" this "Catholic walk" despite the criticisms of those who are "uncomfortable" with our practice.
Many non-neocathecumenate Catholics are assessing their own practices perhaps, because of the controversies, and are, hence, reinforcing their own prayerful ways. How powerful a divide is that?
I sincerely appeal to Concerned Catholics to engage in a process that will allow all voices to be heard on this matter so that a genuinely Christian resolution to all concerns can be reached. Please do not tread on our rights and freedom to worship as we believe.
More importantly, if the Way is providing an option to help our island community with its high rates of suicide, teen pregnancies, domestic conflict, violence and substance abuse, why on Earth would anyone want to dismantle it?
Mariles Diaz Benavente is a resident of Barrigada Heights
http://www.guampdn.com/article/20150115/OPINION02/301150014/Allow-all-Catholic-voices-heard
This letter printed in the PDN was addressed to CCOG. I agree with Mariles Benavente. I would like to know how did CCOG conclude that the NCW has different teachings than the Catholic Church without even having their first open dialogue with members of the NCW. What investigation and criteria did they use to make this conclusion?
ReplyDeleteI consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone's private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated... Precisely to bring out more clearly this deeper meaning of liturgical norms, I have asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject". (EE 52)
DeleteDear Anonymous at 3:12 pm,
DeleteIf you feel that the NCW is not following the liturgical norms, then by all means, write to the Nuncio. But do not tell us to follow you. We will wait for the response of the Vatican.
Kiko was already told to obey
DeleteDear Anonymous at 6:30 am,
DeleteKiko was given 3 recommendations. The jungle calls them reprimands.
So you don't listen to the Popes recommendations? The reality is he is just handling the situation like a loving father would; can't say the same for AAA.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 8:59 am,
DeleteWhere in my comment did I say the we do not listen? The Pope excommunicated a priest in Australia for going against Church teaching. That is also being a father. Sometimes, Mother Church needs to discipline her children to keep them in a straight line. When the Australian priest is ready to be obedient as he had promised at his ordination, the excommunication can be uplifted.
What happened to your post Jolene?
ReplyDeleteWell, who know...?
Deletemaybe this is one of many reasons
ReplyDeletePope Benedict XVI privately met with Kiko regarding the way we are to receive Holy Communion. After the Statutes were approved, we were told by the Catechists how we were to receive Holy Communion, and that these instructions came from the Pope.
The NCW celebrates similar to the Early Christians. We celebrate in small communities just as the Early Christians did. In celebrating the Eucharist, the Early Christians sat down and ate together. Paintings of the first century found in catacombs showed the Early Christians seated around a table during the Eucharist. So, we stand to receive the Body of Christ, and we sit and consume His Body as though we were in a banquet similar to what the Early Christians did. I was told that this was approved by the Pope. I remember Father Pius said that these instructions came from Kiko who received the same instructions from the Pope. That was back in 2008 when the change was made.
Dear Anonymous at 9:55 am.
DeleteThat is probably what happened. Private meetings are not publicized. Recently, the Vatican delegation on Guam met with some people, but what was said in those private meetings were not publicized unless the person comes out into the media and tell what the meeting was about.
The way the NCW receives Holy Communion is the same worldwide. So, this new instruction of receiving Holy Communion was transmitted to all communities worldwide and not only on Guam. The NCW does not make their Eucharistic celebration or a catechesis a secret. It is known worldwide how we receive Holy Communion. And if the communities are doing it incorrectly, the Pope would have excommunicated Kiko Arguello for disobedience.
"Rome has approved it – even the way we’re receiving Communion. That they receive the host standing and they can sit down and everybody who receives it and they eat together...Rome has given permission for that. And it’s somewhere I need to find out where exactly, but they told us that permission is given."
DeleteThere is more to excommunication than what you have mentioned.
DeleteIt's not that simple Dian. Rome will act but not as quick as you assume.
DeleteDiana, has anybody ever confirmed at Rome what you are stating here? Nobody wants to question your truthfulness but by the very nature of your story it calls out for confirmation from Rome!
DeleteDear voice of faith,
DeleteSince 2008, the NCW had made this change in how we receive the Body of Christ. We do not keep it a secret. It is on the Internet. If Rome has a problem with it, there would have been corrections. And if Kiko is found to be disobedient, he can be excommunicated for it.
Weren't the earliest of Christians Christ and the Apostles? Your communities are too big. The next level beyond Christ and the Apostles is the family unit. NCW reduces the bonds of family into a secondary thing, below following Kiko.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 10:08 am,
DeleteLuke 9:14 For they were about five thousand men. And he said to his disciples, Make them sit down by fifties in a company.
In the Neocatechumenal Way, the community should not exceed 50 people.
"In the Neocatechumenal Way, the community should not exceed 50 people."
DeleteWhere does family fall into this 50 people equation?
If there's a NCW function and a birth in the family, which takes precedent?
Dear Anonymous at 7:30 pm,
DeleteWe follow the Spirit of the Law, so the child becomes part of the community. When he/she turns 13, he/she can have a community of his/her own.
So where does one's real family factor into the NCW order of importance? Simple question.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 3:57 am,
DeleteThe birth of the child is an important event. The mother and father cannot be at the NCW celebration, of course, because they are at the hospital with the mother giving birth to the child. Was that what you are asking?
Diana, do you know why the catechists seem to disappear in the convivences apart from the meeting times? Why not stay all the time with the members? They are responsible for them and their actions after all. Maybe it's different in malta though that's why I'm asking
DeleteDear Keith,
DeleteI think you need to ask the catechists in your country that question. And I do not mean for you to ask your girlfriend to ask the catechists for you. You need to ask the catechists so you can hear what they have to say.
Sorry to say but my girlfriend stopped the way a little after me and is living a healthier life now after we almost broke up because of the ncw. So in that case I would not ask her to talk to the catechists for me. Also, I already asked a catechist and i was given no answer, because i had friends at a convivence (two times this happened actually) and because they were left without any responsibile adults to stay with them, let's say there was misappropriate behavior (of course I cannot say exactly on here) .. So I did ask and like many questions i asked i was given a testimony to try and show me how God works through our sins and mistakes, which is true but it is not the correct way of answering the questions i asked.
DeleteAlso, when I told the catechist about the behavior he seemed to be disappointed and told me that he would seethat he tells them.. Unfortunately he did not, as he didn't mention anything in the next saturday celebration nor the next convivence. Now does that not seem strange to say the least and completely unresponsible from the same catechists who sayyime after time we love you and we are here to help you?
keith xuerebJanuary 19, 2015 at 11:10 AM to be given spiritual growth, when your mother sent you to school, is she there every second or minute of the day to watch you? Or you use to being clutch by your mother side? This would lead you to be spineless.
DeleteFunny you mention that example (and sad because it's exactly what the catechists say). Mothers send their children to school because they trust the people there are qualified to take care of their children and they feel they are safe there. Neither of these can be said about the catechists as they are neither trained to take care of people other than in spiritual matters (and even this is doubtful), and neither have they the right experience to tak care of youths or children because even if some catechists are a mother and father they aren't necessarily good parents, and that lack of goood parenting will be passed on to the children and other members. passed on to the children and other members.
DeleteAnother point, if your mother and father learnt something from their past experience which hurt them in the past because it was a mistake, is it not logical and good thinking that they tell you about it and be on the look out to see that you don't do the same mistakes that they did?? If this not so, no one can ever learn and we do not need a parent figure because if not to teach you the good way to go through life's experiences why are parents there?? why are parents there??
So yes it is irresponsible for catechists to leave people out of sight and not know what they are doing. They are abusing the parents' trust by doing so, and if you don't see that as being wrong I don't know how you reason things out.
IF the children do not listen to their parents / catechists, THEN it is not the responsibility of the adults because they tried to keep them away from making mistakes/ sins.
I was reading the part of CCC about the family and I found this about taking care of your children.
Delete2223 Parents have the first responsibility for the education of their children. They bear witness to this responsibility first by creating a home where tenderness, forgiveness, respect, fidelity, and disinterested service are the rule. The home is well suited for education in the virtues. This requires an apprenticeship in self-denial, sound judgment, and self-mastery - the preconditions of all true freedom. Parents should teach their children to subordinate the "material and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones."31 Parents have a grave responsibility to give good example to their children. By knowing how to acknowledge their own failings to their children, parents will be better able to guide and correct them:
"He who loves his son will not spare the rod. . . . He who disciplines his son will profit by him.32
Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord."33
All AAA has to do is provide the document that the Pope approved this...still waiting.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 2:55 pm,
DeleteWhy does it bother you how the NCW celebrate? You are not in the NCW. If you feel that we are not following the liturgical norms, why not simply write to the Nuncio and leave the NCW alone?
Diana - As long as the NCW continues to call themselves "Catholic", they will not be left alone if they continue to practice differently.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 4:19 am,
DeleteYou should bring your case to Rome and demand an answer. Maybe Rome can then send you another 3 kings to speak to and then you can wait for Rome to respond.
This is from the speech of Pope Francis:
ReplyDelete"Filipino culture has, in fact, been shaped by the imagination of faith. Filipinos everywhere are known for their love of God, their fervent piety and their warm devotion to Our Lady and her rosary. This great heritage contains a powerful missionary potential. It is the way in which your people has inculturated the Gospel and continues to embrace its message (cf. Evangelii Gaudium, 122). In your efforts to prepare for the fifth centenary, build on this solid foundation."
Inculturation is a key word here. It is a specific kind of reading the gospel that brings out the essence of Jesus' words in a particular culture so that it can be absorbed. Inculturation is performed by proper translation/ interpretation of the sacred texts that makes people open up to their message. In this sense interpretation is not only allowed but requested from those who transfer the Catholic faith to any particular geographic location for any particular culture. Of course, this interpretation is not an academic endeavor of the exegetes, but an everyday turning to the Bible by the faithful in order to express its meaning by the own words of individuals and groups of people shaped by a particular culture.
bernardin, what you say is that interpretation is okay? But then why would the Catholic books say you cannot interpret the Bible? I see you try to separate academic and everyday interpretation from each other? What would justify this separation? Why cannot you just accept as everybody does that the Bible cannot be interpreted by human beings?
DeleteIf you say academic interpretation is done by a special kind of people called exegetes, then who educates these exegetes to interpret the Bible correctly? If it is the Holy Spirit, then the interpretation is divine by definition, isn't it?
You should say everyday interpretation is just an explanation of the Bible reading in a natural Catholic way. This is actually acceptable, indeed, for me. But then again, why do you call this "interpretation"? Why don't you just call it explanation or key to understanding or any other name? Just asking...
Dear Bernardin,
DeleteInculturation does not mean interpretation. The two are not even synonymous with each other.
Diana, thanks for your note. It is true, inculturation does not mean interpretation. However, good inculturation presupposes correct interpretation. Interpretation is never a goal in itself. Interpretation always serves the purposes of spreading the good news. That is why the church insist on acceptable interpretation of the gospels, especially in the main doctrines, that is not in conflict with the official teaching.
DeleteInculturation makes the good news expressed on a language, including cultural markers, that fits a particular cultural background so that people of that culture hear and grasp the message in a natural way. The concern about the Neocatechumenal catechesis is that it sets up an evangelization framework, written in the Dictionaries of Kiko and Carmen, that completely ignores the aspects of inculturation. In particular Kiko's interpretations lack cultural markers.
Interpretation, inculturation and application go hand in hand, that is why Church documents discuss these things together in the manner they define and influence each other.
Dear anonymnous, the Bible CAN BE interpreted by human beings. Otherwise the Church would not even attempt it!
DeleteDear Bernardin,
DeleteCatholics believe that only the teaching office of the Catholic Church interprets the Bible. The laity does not have this authority. If you are a Protestant Christian, then you can interpret the Bible because they believe the Bible to be the sole authority.
You are right, Diana, if I would be Protestant, then I could interpret the Bible without limitations following the principle of sola scriptura. However, as a Catholic, I have limitations in interpreting the Bible, especially the gospels, as I have to stick to the guidelines of the Catholic Magisterium. This is fine. But you make me curious. Diana. How do you understand the meaning of the word 'interpretation'? What does it mean to you? Which interpretation is prohibited and which one is allowed in your opinion? How do you know the difference? For example, what does it mean to you that in the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God?
DeleteIf you repeat the official church interpretation, how and why would that be banned? Even more interesting is to say that no human being can interpret the Bible. How could this be true when the prophets, the apostles and the evangelists were all human beings? They wrote the Bible! Do you know any example when a Protestant interpretation had to be corrected by the Catholic Church? I would truly appreciate your responses, because it would help me to understand your approach to Bible a little better. Thanks.
Dear Bernardin,
DeleteIt was the Holy Spirit through the Church who chose which books should be included in the Holy Bible as inspired Scripture. And only the Holy Spirit through the Church is the only one who can accurately interpret Sacred Scripture.
Following and repeating Church interpretation is not banned. It is individual human interpretation that is not allowed. Even the Early Christians did not practice this. The Catholic Church does not correct the Protestant's belief. The Catholic Church only corrects her members. We are allowed to have dialogues with our Christian brothers in the Protestant side, but a "you are wrong and we are right" discussion bears no fruit. We dialogue with each other so we can come to an understanding and get along with each other.
You see Diana, it is one more reason then that Catholics should also have conversation and mutual understanding with fellow Catholics. There are so much more than the JungleWatch, Tim Rohr and the Neocatechumenals. Most of us do not belong to any of these. Most Catholics on Guam are not happy that the Archbishop is attacked day and night and demanded to resign. Most of us want peaceful faith life, spiritual growth in the Lord for everyone, nourishing of our faith that is beneficial to individuals and families as well.
DeleteI like what you say about the interpretation of the Bible here. Following and repeating Church interpretation is not banned but strongly encouraged. Very true! The Church interpretation was shaped by exegetes and approved by official Church bodies. The only question, where can we find it and read it? Imagine you want to explain the verse "in the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" to kids. You want to tell them what the Magisterium is saying. How to search?
By the way, I also liked your anagogy of the group of 50 people at the feeding of the crowd. The Bible did not say it is about the ideal size of Christian communities but nevertheless you found this meaning. I see you do not call this interpretation, it is just opening up the true meaning of the Word. Nice and courageous job, anyway!
It is interesting too, bernardin, that the Gospel speaks of the feeding of the 5000 - but these were men only as it was not the custom to count the women and children.
DeleteSo when the gospel mentions that Jesus instructed: "Make them sit down by fifties in a company", we can only assume that it was fifty men, not fifty "people".
That would make the size of the "companies" significantly different - maybe 150, including women and children? Oh dear, methinks Kiko might have mis-interpreted this one.
Dear Anonymous at 11:59 am,
DeleteThe reason the Holy Bible does not count women and children is because husband and wife are counted as one. Families are also counted as one. The man is always the HEAD of the household.
Your separating the women and children from the men is NOT Catholic. The Catholic Church has always taught that a husband and wife are one flesh and that the man is the head of the household. So, Anonymous....as you can see, Kiko did not misinterpret Church teaching. It was YOU who misinterpreted it. In the Neocatechumenal Way, husband and wife are counted as one individual, not two. Whenever we choose new groups in our community, the husband and wife are always written as one individual and are always together in a group.
Dear Diana at 12.35, I'm sorry but I don't quite understand what you are saying. Can you clarify this for me please? Do you mean that when it is said that the communities should not exceed 50 people, in fact they actually do exceed fifty people because the 50 refers only to the men? So actually the number in any one community may be close to 100 people?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 1:19 pm,
DeleteThere are approximately 1400 people in Guam walking in the Way. Each community has less than 50 people even if you count the women and children. The NCW keeps the community at no more than 50 people. If many people attend the catechesis and would like to join, they will be broken up into two communities, but husbands and wives always stay together, if the children are 13 years or older, they can join a community of their own.
Ok, so I did understand it correctly. There are to be no more that 50 people in the community, and this is argued on the basis of the passage in Luke's gospel. As I pointed out though, when Jesus gave that instruction to the apostles to have them sit in groups of 50, it was 50 men per "company" and so the number of people in the "company would have well exceeded 50 when the women and children were counted. Looks like another false interpretation by Kiko, huh?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 1:49 pm,
DeleteYou did not understand. When they counted how many people, it was found to be 5000 men, not including the women and children. Jesus never said to divide them up by 50 men. He said have them sit down by fifties in a company. That means each company is supposed to have 50 people.
But they didn't count the women and the children
DeleteDear Anonymous at 3:02 pm,
DeleteAfter they divided them into groups of fifties, they eventually counted the women and children because they also have to eat.
This is right! Who of right mind would think women and children don't have to eat?! So wake up, the Holy Spirit tries to tell you something. The Bible actually does not count women because they are not supposed to make decision for the family. In the Old Testament Joshua said as for me and my household, we'll follow the Lord. Joshua made the decision and the household followed because it was his household! One household is one entity in the eye of God!
DeleteThe same is confirmed in the New Testament when Cornelius becomes a follower of Christ together with his household again! Not one-by-one but everyone in one accord! As a unity, the family is led by the husband who is the father of the kids. This is the true meaning of Bible and it is not even an interpretation. Who would be so foolish to call this an interpretation, when it is the actual Biblical truth?!
No human being can ever interpret the Bible correctly, but the true meaning of the verse is clear for everyone after we had given the key for proper understanding. How is that? Well, very simple! Because the Holy Spirit shines through... Is this not amazing, folks?
I'm sorry anonymous you lost me when you said women are not supposed to make decisions in the family. The women have as much say in a family decision as much as the husband. And here is the website if you want to read- http://whatthebiblesays.info/gender-equality/
DeleteI will just post a part of the erroneous 'interpretation' which is not what God intended surely. - Now consider Paul’s teaching: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord” (Ephesians 5:22). A husband with a tendency to look down on women might use this passage as an excuse for continuing to put himself first. But such a person would be completely missing the point of the passage. Paul meant that everyone should be submissive, not just wives. The verse just before says, “Submit yourselves one to another in the fear of God” (Ephesians 5:21), that is, wives submit to husbands, and husbands submit to wives. The Christian way to greatness is through humility and submission, not through pride, rebellion and domination.
Dear Keith,
DeleteFirst of all, that website is not Catholic. When it comes to decision making both husband and wife discuss about it. If they both agree to the decision...that is never a problem. It is when there is a disagreement. For example, if the wife says that we should do this and the husband says, no, I think this is what should be done. If there is a conflict between the husband and wife when it comes to making decision, it is the husband who has the final say, and the wife must follow that decision. That is what it means to be "Head of the house." The man takes the lead in the decision making if there is a conflict.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a4.htm This is as the CCC says God's plan for the family. It cannot get any more catholic than this. The Church never even separates mother and father but always calls them parents.
DeleteWhen there is a decision to be taken and the husband and wife do not agree, they should discuss what the best decision is and be humble enough that the other person's decision was the better one to take.
Keith you are too much influenced by secular thinking. Secularization is the great enemy of the Catholic Church and the Neocatechumenal Way is the most powerful way in the hand of the Church to counter and fight back against secularization! That is why we do not listen to human interpretations of the Bible. We take the Word of God itself by its very meaning as God proclaimed it, so that we can all understand.
DeleteWhat kind of gender equity are you talking about? A house divided is a house falling! Again, it is not an interpretation of the Scripture. It is the Word of God itself! If the woman makes decision in the household then the household is collapsing! Why? Because the head is the husband. Faithful Jews, our brothers in faith, would never shake hand with a woman. Why? Not because women are inferior, not at all! But because the head of household is always and must be the man. The Bible is very clear about this.
In the Way we usually have a man or a married couple who are the responsible for the community. We never have a single woman. No bias, no inequity, but the Word of God rules! Gender equity is the invention of secularism! It has nothing to do with our Church. Our Church is founded on the decent teaching of the Lord and not on secularism. Secularism is the weapon of the devil against the Church in the modern era. So be careful what you are saying, Keith. Do not fall into erroneous “interpretations”, do not fall away from the Word of God!
Dear Keith,
DeleteWhen a husband and wife disagree as to what decision to make, they will discuss it. But if there is still a disagreement, it is ultimately the husband who will make the final decision and the wife should support her husband's decision despite that she disagrees with it.
The husband symbolizes Christ while the wife symbolizes the Church. The Church must always follow Christ. Christ is not the one to follow the Church. In God's family, Christ is the Head of the Church. This is also true in the human family. The husband is the head of the household.
You said it yourself that is symbolism. It is not to be taken literally. The church is all the people who choose to believe in Jesus Christ, man and woman, who were created by His Father in His image and likeness equally. No side has to be submissive to the other just because the other side is the 'head' of the family (except the children obviously) but they can come to a resilt where they reason out which decision would be best together. I.e. If they are good formed catholics there will be no need to be a 'head' of the household because they are one body in Jesus Christ.
DeleteDear Keith,
DeleteThe biblical verse is not demeaning a woman in any way. The Bible says that the husband should love his wife as Christ love the Church. And how did Christ love the Church? By giving his life for her. My husband would give his life for me, so being obedient to him is not a problem for me. I do not wish to take my husband's title from him. God gave the man to be the head, and the woman is the heart. A man always listen to his heart before he makes any final decision. The husband is the spiritual leader, and he would make decisions for the good of the family. And if the wife truly trusts her husband, she would have no problems supporting him. The head of the family is the one to give up his life to protect his wife.
Diana this is much more detailed than just 'listening to the head of the household'. They should be ready to give their lifefor each other though not just the man for the woman.
DeleteWhat you said last is quite different from what there was weitten by you and others in previous posts. A man always should listen to his heart, to his wife, yes, and the same should the wife listen to her husband, and in this way it is not important who of the two makes the final decision as it would be in agreement with both. The man can say the final decision is ... But it is the family's decision after all, and not just the man, who was represented to have a 'dictator'-like role in making decisions.
As a slight aside, I was reading the transcript of Pope Francis' Q & A on the flight from Manila to Rome and noticed his discussion on Paul VI and birth control. NCW should note well:
Delete"On Paul VI: It’s true that openness to life is a condition for the sacrament of matrimony. A man cannot give the sacrament to the woman, and the woman cannot give it to him, if they are not in accord on this point of openness to life. If it can be proved that he or she married with the intention of not being Catholic (on this point) then the matrimony is null. (It is) a cause for the annulment of the marriage, no? Openness to life.
"This does not mean that the Christian must make children in series. I rebuked a woman some months ago in a parish who was pregnant eight times, with seven C-sections (cesareans). “But do you want to leave seven orphans? That is to tempt God! (Paul VI) speaks of responsible parenthood. What I wanted to say was that Paul VI was not antiquated, close minded. No,(he was) a prophet again who with this (encyclical) told us to watch out for the Neo-Malthusianism that is coming. This is what I wanted to say.
"That example i mentioned shortly before about that woman who was expecting her eighth (child) and already had seven who were born with caesareans. That is an irresponsibility (That woman might say) 'no but I trust in god' But God gives you methods to be responsible. Some think that, excuse me if i use that word, that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits. No. Responsible parenthood! This is clear and that is why in the church there are marriage groups, there are experts in this matter, there are pastors, one can seek and i know so many, many ways out that are licit and that have helped this. You did well to ask me this."
Pope Francis also said: "Every people deserves to conserve its identity without being ideologically colonized." Ideological colonization is reference to the methods of the neo.
DeleteHe is a wonderful pope. I do think he speaks off the cuff a lot and people misinterpret him. Let's wait for him to repeat this ex-cattedra before we go jumping to conclusion that women should cap births after a certain number or that having 7 csections is wrong. Ex-cattreda please: specify the exact number of acceptable c sections. Or the exact number of children one should have. I am sure none of this is what he had in mind. Was what Gianna molla did too much? Or more recently Chiara petrillo. Was that too much? Aren't we called to heroic virtue?
DeleteThe pope's message was very clear. Let no one decide for you parents how many children you should have. That is something the husband and wife should do, and if no decision can be taken then there are specially trained people for this to help you discern if it would be a Responsible choice to have another child or not. Another thing the pope was not just talking about the people in the philipines only, I think the pope knows how the media works, and how the message would be absorbed by all humans and all catholics so i am sure he was saying this with responsibility to all the church. There are many factors including but not limited to financial reasons why a mother and father would choose not to have another child and it is perfectly fine if they are not ready to take the responsibility of bringing up their child in a good way. Every family is different because each situation is different. He also spoke about the methods the church allows and agrees on most importantly he mentioned natural family planning, which is using the natural tools God gave the women to plan responsibly whether or not to have a child or not after reflecting on it.
DeleteIt is not in producing offspring like rabbits do as Pope Francis said. It is in giving your kids a quality life! To each and every single one with chances in succeeding in their lives. Would you be willing to leave out any of your kids from the riches of the blessing of God? By no means! So do not have that much kids that you cannot handle. Many kids often means perpetuating poverty. Especially true where overpopulation creates famine, epidemic and other disasters. Have you not heard about the Ebola epidemic in Africa?
DeleteNext years Pope Francis will chair a great meeting of bishops to discuss family matters, including overpopulation, contraception and gay marriage. This great gathering will shape the Catholic understanding of what constitutes a family. It will be about families of people, not families of rabbits, if you see what I mean. Sorry, just quoted the pope.
Neither of you answer my questions. What is too much? How does one define parameters for another? Do u know about Gianna molla and Chiara petrillo?
DeleteVof as usual you completely miss the mark. let us examine your comment about quality of life. What does that phrase mean? Does it mean that children who cannot live according to certain standards should not live? What are these standards? Wealth, health, beauty? Should we follow the U.S. government poverty line standards to determine if a family can afford another life? Cable satellite TV a must? Or maybe health? Is the quality of life of a child with Down syndrome worth his or her life? Autism cerebral palsy learning disabilities? Maybe we should make sure that parents who have crooked noses or teenage acne are not allowed to reproduce and cause endless generations psychic trauma for being called pimple face in high school. Is this what you mean by quality of life? Here is an idea: let us eliminate all possibility of life to anyone who isn't guaranteed a life without suffering.
DeleteJust in case you missed it I am being very sarcastic. But your comment is so asinine and full of tv wisdom that I dont know how else to respond.
Please read the full text of the popes comment. He begins by saying how there is no marriage without openness to life. Keith is closer to what is in my view an acceptable answer by leaving the choice to the conscience of the married couple. However I do take issue w the idea that financial considerations weigh more than a life.
I think it is important to keep in mind that CCOG is a group of individuals who have established an incorporation outside Church law and the boundaries of Holy Mother Church with the purpose of criticizing and being a hindrance to the lawful hierarchy. As a group of individuals, they can be addressed and called to dialogue, but as an institution or association in the Church they do not exist.
ReplyDeleteWoww, Timmy is done. After what he wrote about Fr Edivaldo, an ordained priest of Guam, Timmy surely has to shut down the shop, fire his stupid trolls and even work very hard to save his own skin. Poor Timmy, it is endgame for you, it is endgame for Jungle Watch!
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 12:06 am,
DeleteTim took the photos down. That was quick. I guess someone must have shown him the Guam law. :) A person cannot put up photos taken on personal property without their permission.
Diana, are you quite certain?
DeleteRohr was never going to leave the pics on permanently. he left them up just long enough to create scandal and slander fr edivaldo. He is a criminal. He knows exactly what he is doing which makes his sin so much worse.
DeleteJOHN TYPHOON MAYBE ?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 5:09 pm,
DeleteTim took out the photos from his blog but not entirely. He left a link on his blog that leads directly to Father Edivaldo's photo with his family. Because the link is thee along with the comments, Rohr is still using Father Edivaldo's photo to misrepresent him. I don't think Tim is aware that using a personal photo of someone without their permission and for the sole purpose of misrepresenting them is illegal.
Nothing rohr or the chatholics of Guam can do should surprise us. Courage
ReplyDeleteThey claim to represent the Catholic faithful of Guam but their deeds and actions to date are more representative of heretics.
It is a more serious sin not to perform what one has promised than not to perform what one has not promised.
it'll be an interesting conversation they will have with God during mass this weekend.
Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." Luke 10:16
"Allow All Catholics To Be Heard", I like that.
ReplyDeleteNowadays, it seems there are two churches which call themselves "catholic." The traditional way is run by Jesus Christ-Lord and Savior. But with man' appetite, curiosity leads them to search for more to satisfy themselves, even where there is nothing more to be found, but they must to please man, not God. I must make certain that the one whom I obey stands for the Truth and supports the Tradition of Faith. I must make certain that I am obeying the one who builds up the Faith and does not tear it down. Jesus said "Build my Church" one Church, and He meant--Singular Church. Amen.
AnonymousJanuary 17, 2015 at 11:30 PM
ReplyDelete"Allow All Catholics To Be Heard", I like that.
Agree with you but lets put in perspective
the two churches you refer too is more closer to three. There is one church which was formed by how we raised; cannot be criticized by anyone. There is second church which is interpreted by how another person was raised and lastly the church of our Father. None of the three can be imposed on another person.
rohr and the chatholics have shown nothing but hateful actions and intentions towards the head of our Father's church on Guam. We cannot talk about scriptures or the church of our Father with this attitude simply because God is never present in the same room...the same heart with satan.
Yes Jesus said " Build my Church" and he was speaking directly to you and you alone. How can anyone build any Church unless we first listen to Christ?
rohr and chatholics don't talk about Christ. In fact they talk about rules and procedures as they interpret it to suit their human glory.
Human glory means nothing to me.....John Chap 5 verse 41
Dear Anonymous at9:35 am,
DeleteIn the Way, we were taught to look at our history, which gives us an idea of why we are who we are. I do not think Tim has the same heart as Satan. Tim has a history like all of us and he suffers like all of us. I do not think his campaign against the Archbishop has anything to do with rules and regulation. Tim has called the Archbishop a "liar".....that is one thing. But he has also called the Archbishop "evil".......and that shows a personal grudge.
Removing a priest because of disobedience is not considered evil. Replacing a priest due to financial management is also not evil. So, there is a grudge that Rohr is holding against the Archbishop, and I think it has to do with his history when he fought against the same sex bill proposed by B.J. Cruz. Tim Rohr has made a comment on my blog (and even in his blog), complaining about his ordeal as he fought against the same sex bill. He felt alone in that battle despite that God and His Church were with him. I remember the Archbishop and Deacon Jeff Barcinas speaking out against the bill in the media.
Tim was up against both B.J. Cruz and Bill Pesch. Cruz was a judge and a lawyer before he was elected a senator. Pesch is a family law attorney fighting for gay rights. Tim asked the Archbishop if any of the attorneys (especially those in the Way) could take the lead in the fight. The Archbishop could find none. I think that Tim probably blamed the Archbishop for his ordeal as he went through this battle. He could not see that God is not going to send a lawyer to battle another lawyer. That is not how God works. After all, God sent David (a shepherd boy with no military skills) to defeat Goliath (a giant soldier trained with military skills). B.J. Cruz and Pesch were both lawyers and expert with the law, and who was Tim Rohr?? He was a plumber and a small businessman in real estate with a wife and 11 children.
Nevertheless, the same sex bill was defeated, and Rohr's mistake was in thinking that it was his determination and effort that defeated the bill rather than God working through him. Rohr admitted in his blog that he did not want to lead the battle and that it cost him some loss in his business and friends. In my opinion, I think he blamed the Archbishop for the suffering he went through as he fought against the same sex bill. Because of his pride, he was unable to see that the Church was beside him fighting the same battle. Because of his pride, he felt that the defeat of the same sex bill was all because of his effort, and he blamed the Archbishop for the suffering he went through. So, it is a personal agenda with Tim Rohr.
please don't make the mistake of lessening the sin that rohr and chatholics have committed Diana.
Deletea sin is still a sin no matter what.
rohrs priority is not giving glory to the God but glory to man.
Dear Anonymous at 11:34 am,
DeleteI agree that a sin is still a sin. Tim lied when he told the delegation that he does not hate the Archbishop. The fact that he called him "evil" shows his hatred. I also agree that Tim Rohr gave glory to himself rather than to God. He gave himself the credit for what he thinks is his achievement. But Tim Rohr is not our enemy. Satan is our enemy and has always been our enemy. Because Tim is a Catholic (although a fallen Catholic), he is a fellow Catholic and a brother whom God also loves.
We cannot change Tim Rohr or CCOG. I am not excusing Tim's sin or his behavior. He made his choice by going against the Church; therefore, we can only pray for them and trust in God's plan.
God's plan? Or Apuron's agenda.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 12:23 pm,
DeleteIt is God's plan. The only one who has an agenda is Tim Rohr. His agenda is to remove the Archbishop.
DeleteAnonymousJanuary 18, 2015 at 12:23 PM
God's plan? Or Apuron's agenda.
Good question but we should be more concerned with Gods plan for us rather than other people.
a waste of time, complete waste of a life if one does not seek Gods plan for their lives.
What do you mean that Tim Rohr is a "Fallen Catholic? And what permits you to make that judgement?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:33 am,
DeleteHe is fallen because he opposes the Archbishop who was appointed by the Pope. He is doing whatever he can to remove the Archbishop, and he either does not have the patience or the trust to wait for Rome. It has been taught in the Catholic Church that God always act, but not according to your time. God acts in His own time.
If, for arguments sake, you could imagine a situation where a Bishop committed some evil act, or violated his duties to those to whom he shepherds, would you say that it is the Pope that authorised the Bishops poor behaviour, just because "he was appointed by the Pope"? Please, try harder to make a rational argument.
DeleteWould you stand up against the sins of the hypothetical bishop?
And if, instead of the "Archbishop", it is actually lies, bullying and mismanagement that "he [Tim] opposes", would you expect to se a different situation. For me, it is quite clear that he [Tim] is fighting against vice in the Church; against corruption and lies. It is continually taught in the Church that God acts through all of creation, including through mankind, and not necessarily in accordance to your own prejudices and preferences.
Diana, I thought that ruthless self-honesty was something valued in the NCW? How is it that good people get caught in this situation where they miss the fruits of the Holy Spirit, and defend poor behaviour, unkindness and cold-heartedness.
By the way, the "Fruits of the Spirit" I don't mean what you all mean:
Galatians 5:22-23 “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.”
CCC 1832 The fruits of the Spirit are perfections that the Holy Spirit forms in us as the first fruits of eternal glory. The tradition of the Church lists twelve of them: "charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, chastity."
When a family ostracizes one of its own, or a friend discontinues their friendship, because a "brother", who "ought to know better" (many are called, but few are chosen), decides that the NCW is not for him - where, then, is the goodness, kindness, generosity, !!gentleness!!?
Dear Anonymous at 3:20 pm,
DeleteRemoving a priest from his parish and transferring a priest to another parish is NOT a sin??? Where did you learn that these acts are sins? What you call lies and bullying are all allegations made up by Tim.
Diana I would like to add, firstly Jolene stated that she was never was part of the JWblog but here's the link which she is part of the "Hate Group" http://www.junglewatch.info/2015/01/lol-tim-rohr-plumber-lol.html#comment-form.
DeleteSecondly - my prediction I'm hoping the Manila envelope was submitted is his EXCOMMUNICATION referral.
You have shaken him with your input on January 18, 2015 at 11:17 AM. He was back pedaling with his audience what really made him crack towards the Archbishop. He is in denial with acronym comment ROTFLMAO. My opinion he was tickled by it, why? Why post in his myspace?
Allow All Catholics To Be Heard--
ReplyDeleteAnonymousJanuary 18, 2015 at 9:35 AM.
And be heard is what I just did. I spoke for myself. To my understanding the Catholic Church, it's celebration of the Holy Mass existed way before our great grandparents, grandparents, parents, you and I were even born.
Who are we to emerge from this world, now, to make any changes in the Holy Mass, compromising with Jesus and what He had already giving to us.
I shall go now. Your respond in naming other people, describing them is not my intention here. Not fruitful either!
Dear Anonymous at 1:38 pm,
DeleteThroughout the years, some parts in the Mass has changed. For example, during the time when my grandmother celebrated Mass, the priest had his back turned away from the people. Latin was said in the Mass instead of the vernacular. Certain changes in the Mass were made at the Second Vatican Council. A couple of years ago, there were also some changes in the way we say Mass.
"my grandmother celebrated Mass"
DeleteYour grandmother was a priest?
I've traveled Philly ,NY and Spain etc. I've witness mass kneeling is not part of in their regular and this is non NCW mass. Again they are nit picking everything that blows.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 4:23 pm,
DeleteI meant that my grandmother attended the celebration of the Mass. Thank you for pointing out my typing error.
Diana,
DeleteYou are not really wrong, with regards to the celebration of the Eucharist(Mass). Your grandmother celebrated the Mass (Eucharist) since it is the action of the whole Church.
Here are some excerpts from GIRM:
27. At Mass or the Lord’s Supper the People of God is called together, with a Priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or Eucharistic Sacrifice.[37] In an outstanding way there applies to such a local gathering of the holy Church the promise of Christ: “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst” (Mt 18:20). For in the celebration of Mass, in which the Sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated,[38] Christ is really present in the very assembly gathered in his name, in the person of the minister, in his word, and indeed substantially and uninterruptedly under the Eucharistic species.[39]
5. Moreover, by this nature of the ministerial Priesthood, something else is put in its proper light, something certainly to be held in great esteem, namely, the royal Priesthood of the faithful, whose spiritual sacrifice is brought to completion through the ministry of the Bishop and the Priests, in union with the Sacrifice of Christ, the sole Mediator.[9] For the celebration of the Eucharist is the action of the whole Church, and in it each one should carry out solely but totally that which pertains to him, in virtue of the place of each within the People of God. The result of this is that greater consideration is also given to some aspects of the celebration that have sometimes been accorded less attention in the course of the centuries. For this people is the People of God, purchased by Christ's Blood, gathered together by the Lord, nourished by his word, the people called to present to God the prayers of the entire human family, a people that gives thanks in Christ for the mystery of salvation by offering his Sacrifice, a people, finally, that is brought together in unity by Communion in the Body and Blood of Christ. This people, though holy in its origin, nevertheless grows constantly in holiness by conscious, active, and fruitful participation in the mystery of the Eucharist.[10]
PARTICULARLY: For the celebration of the Eucharist is the action of the whole Church, and in it each one should carry out solely but totally that which pertains to him, in virtue of the place of each within the People of God.
Pax et bonum!!!
"Ubi Petrus ibi Ecclesia"
Other excerpts:
Delete16. The celebration of Mass, as the action of Christ and of the People of God arrayed hierarchically, is the center of the whole of Christian life for the Church both universal and local, as well as for each of the faithful individually.[22] For in it is found the high point both of the action by which God sanctifies the world in Christ and of the worship that the human race offers to the Father, adoring him through Christ, the Son of God, in the Holy Spirit.[23] In it, moreover, during the course of the year, the mysteries of redemption are celebrated so as to be in some way made present.[24] As to the other sacred actions and all the activities of the Christian life, these are bound up with it, flow from it, and are ordered to it.[25]
34. Since the celebration of Mass by its nature has a “communitarian” character,[45] both the dialogues between the Priest and the assembled faithful, and the acclamations are of great significance;[46] for they are not simply outward signs of communal celebration but foster and bring about communion between Priest and people.
Pax et bonum!!!
"Ubi Petrus ibi Ecclesia"