Što učiniti s prezbiterima na Guamu?

piše Time Rohr

 

CNMI odvjetnik ima pravo:

Inkardinacija ima svoje posljedice.

Neokatekumenski prezbiteri su zaređeni i inkardinirani u Nadbiskupiju Agaña.

Stoga, osim ako ih neki drugi biskup ne primi u svoju biskupiju, mi smo financijski odgovorni za njihovo uzdržavanja do kraja njihova života, kao npr. u slučaju oca Brouillard.

Ne može ih se jednostrano vratiti natrag u njihove zemlje porijekla.

To je zapravo bilo jasno od samoga početka. Upravo zbog toga je Kiko inzistirao na tome da njegov “Put” NE bude klasificirana kao laički pokret, niti njegovi prezbiteri kao nova redovnička zajednica. Da je to bio “Pokret”, Kiko i njegov Put bi bili došli u djelokrug papinski vijeća i dikasterija koji upravljaju laičkim pokretima i kojima bi on bio odgovoran. On je želio to izbjeći. Da su njegovi prezbiteri ustanovljeni kao jedan od redovničkih redova, oni bi morali sami skupljati financijska sredstva i brinuti se sami o sebi. Kiko je to htio izbjeći.

Inzistiranjem na tome da Put nije pokret nego takozvani “itinerarij” odgoja odraslih u vjeri, Kiko se uspio kao lisica uvući u crkvene strukture tako da je Put podredio samo biskupima. Jednog biskupa je puno lakše dobiti i kontrolirati nego papinsko vijeće. Kako nisu podređeni nekom središnjem vatikanskom uredu, Kiko i njegov Put su slobodni ustanoviti svoje institucije gdjegod mogu prevariti nekog biskupa. Tu je Kiko bio genije. U svijetu postoji skoro 3000 katoličkih biskupija. Stoga, ustanovljujući Neokatekumenski put kao biskupijski “itinerarij odgoja u vjeri”, a ne kao laički pokret, Kiko je multiplicirao svoje šanse za uspjeh 3000 puta!

No ipak, njegova prava genijalnost očitovala se u njegovom pretvaranju da su njegova sjemeništa zapravo biskupijska sjemeništa. Na takav način si je osigurao da će vjernici laici plaćati njegove račune. Za razliku od redovničkih redova (kao što su kapucini) koji moraju sami pribaviti vlastita sredstva kako bi uzdržavali i odgajali svoje članove, Kikova djeca, jednom kad su inkardinirana u neku biskupiju, financiraju se iz redovite nedjeljne milostinje.
Stoga smo s takvima kao što je The Waldo vezani zauvijek… OSIM AKO.
Ali prije nego dođem do “OSIM AKO” zamoljen sam za vašu pomoć u lociranju ovih “nestalih prezbitera”. Ako imate neku informaciju o njihovoj lokaciji možete ostaviti komentar ili poslati poruku na junglewatch.info@gmail.com.

Idemo sada na “OSIM AKO”.
Ovo bi zahtijevalo određeno istraživanje, ali ako se može dokazati da smo bili zavedeni kako bismo platili troškove sjemeništa i odgoja koji zapravo uopće nije postojao, mogli bismo možda dignuti kolektivnu tužbu protiv Apurona, Gennarinijevih i svih drugih koji su sudjelovali u toj prijevari i prisili da se financira potpora tim prezbiterima.
Druga mogućnost je insistiranje na kanonskoj istrazi o tome, je li ijedan od tih prezbitera bio prisiljen na ređenje ili, je li Apuronu bilo naređeno da ih zaredi premda je znao da nisu prikladni. Znamo barem za jedan slučaj za kojeg imamo svjedoka da je Apuron tako rekao.  To bi mogao biti razlog za laicizaciju tog prezbitera i njegovo oslobođenje za ponovni laički život.
Vjerojatno bi najjednostavniji način bio vidjeti bili neki drugi neo-friendly biskup (kao Chaput i O’Malley) bio spreman primiti ih. A onda bi možda činjenica da ih nijedan biskup ne želi primiti pokazala zašto su opće poslani na Guam.
Dok smo možda prevareni za stotine tisuća dolara u financiranju Apuronova prezbiterskog vrtića, nema razloga da podnosimo Apuronov nered unedogled. Možda bi se tu moglo naći nekoliko prezbitera koje bi se moglo spasiti, psihološki provjeriti itd., te poslati natrag u školu na neko vrijeme, ali nešto mi govori da bi drugi brzo bacili svoje kolare u smeće.

Konačno progovorili članovi bivšeg Ekonomskog vijeća biskupije na Guamu

Following is the statement give to the media today regarding the Yona Property by the members of the Archdiocesan Finance Council who Apuron fired in 2012.

Statement Concerning Yona Property

August 31, 2016

Download PDF copy here

We, the former members of the Archdiocesan Finance Council (who were terminated en masse by Archbishop Apuron), along with Deacon Steve Martinez, who was the Finance Officer during our tenure, make the following statements.

Since we were terminated in January 2012, certain statements by Fr. Pius Sammut, current Rector of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary and the Chief Catechist of the Neo Catechumenate Way in Guam, Archbishop Apuron, Fr. Adrian Cristobal, the former Chancellor, and Fr. Edivaldo da Silva Oliveira, the former Archdiocesan Media Relations Person, all members of the Neo Catechumenal Way, have surfaced in various public publications about the role we took in the purchase in 2002 of the property formerly known as Accion Hotel located in Yona, upon which the Redemptoris Mater Seminary(RMS) now occupies; and our role in the subsequent transfer by this archdiocese of the Yona property to the RMS corporation, a separate legal entity, controlled by the movement known as the Neo Catechumenal Way (NCW), that operates the seminary.

In light of the recent statements made by Fr. Pius Sammut and Archbishop Apuron, we have collectively concluded that, enough is enough, it is time to set the record straight.

We were there. We were intimately privy to the transactions, as our input, analysis, and approval were all required by Canon Law for any transaction to occur. We know what happened. Fr. Pius was not directly involved. Fr. Adrian was not directly involved. Fr. Edivaldo was not involved. Archbishop Apuron was, but as you shall see, he appears to be suffering from a case of selective memory. So, today, we will debunk these statements and expose them for what they are: fabrications in an attempt to cover-up the secret transfer and recordation of the title of the Yona property to the RMS Corporation.

  • Contrary to the impression created by these statements that the Yona land was purchased solely for the use of the RMS, we approved in 2002 the purchase of the Yona property not only for the purpose of housing the seminary, but also because of its size, it will “…allow the Archdiocese to build other buildings for use by parishioners, without interrupting the operation of the seminary.” Thus, it was not purchased for the exclusive use of any particular group in the archdiocese, but for the benefit of all Catholics in Guam.
  1. Contrary to the statements by Fr. Pius (August 3, 2014, Pacific Daily News) that “… the money for the purchase of the hotel was donated to the archdiocese by an off-island benefactor who offered it with the explicit intention of erecting the seminary and the theological institute, … that the previous owner of the hotel sold it with the proviso that the building be used as an educational facility, and that actually the archdiocese did not put down a penny”, these are the facts:
  1. We approved the purchase in 2002 by securing a $2.0 million loan with the Bank of Guam. In weighing the risks involved, we concluded that the “…value of the property to the loan provides ample cushion in the event the Seminary is not able to repay the debt.” We further concluded that the “… property can be easily liquidated for an amount that could pay-off the loan and provide a windfall for the Archdiocese.” There was no donor involved.
  1. The previous owner did not have a proviso that the building be used for an educational facility. The Yona property was purchased free of any restrictions and encumbrances. This was our condition.
  1. The donor to whom Fr. Pius referred as donating the money for the purchase of the hotel did not exist in 2002. That donor did not surface until the following year. Thus, it was this archdiocese that purchased the property borrowing and expending $2 million, plus other closing, loan payments, and related expenses. No donor was involved because the donor had not existed at the time of purchase.
  1. As for the intention of the donor, in a letter to Archbishop Apuron dated February 2, 2015, responding to Archbishop Apuron’s request to sign an enclosed letter confirming  that the donor did in fact donate the money with that “explicit intention”,  the  donor refused and disagreed, explaining as follows:

Dear Archbishop Apuron, in 2003 when the said “funds” were donated, we had absolutely no knowledge of these entities (like Redemptoris Mater Seminary, the Neo-catechumenal Way, or the Theological Institute for the formation of priests), not to speak of any specific intention whatsoever to relate this donation to them. In fact, we did not even know of these lay organizations, so naturally we could not direct anything to them by name. It was our sole intention to help the people of Guam to provide a property for a seminary for the formation of priests for the Church in Guam. At that time, in 2003, we were made aware of the burden you were carrying in regard to the purchase of this property for a seminary. It was our desire to help relieve you of this concern and enable the Archdiocese to conduct a seminary in the former hotel. This was our intent. It was not our intent that the Archdiocese place on the hotel property, purchased with our donation, a deed restriction, in perpetuity, whereby the property is now dedicated to be used only for the Redemptoris Mater Seminary and Theological Institute. As a result, we felt “very ill at ease” when we came to know about the “Deed Restriction” which gives the Redemptoris Mater Seminary control of the said Property in “perpetuity.”  The phrase, “in perpetuity” implies that the seminary now belongs to the Neocatechumenal Way Christians, which is the only group permitted to use the property now or in the future… In conclusion, dear Archbishop Apuron, I cannot sign the letter you drafted for me because it would not in fact be truthful. We are keeping you, the seminarians and all the people of Guam very much in our prayers. May the Spirit of love bring peace and unity to all.  Sincerely in Christ, TDR.

  1. The theological institute to which Fr. Pius referred did not exist until 2005, three years after the purchase in 2002. Thus, the assertion by Fr. Pius that it was the donor’s  “explicit intention” that the funds be used to purchase the Yona property for the RMS and the theological institute was a physical impossibility.

Is this what they call recreating history to fit your narrative?

  • Contrary to what Fr. Pius said (KUAM, 8/24/2016), Archbishop Apuron said (Declaration released to all media, 8/25/2016), Fr. Adrian said (KUAM, 1/14/2015), and Fr. Edivaldo said (Pacific Daily News, June 1, 2016), whereby they all collectively accused the former AFC of trying to sell the Yona property for various reasons such as paying off the archdiocesan debts, to cover the debt incurred by the Cathedral Basilica and Catholic Cemeteries, and selling the Yona property to some big-time casino operator, these are the facts:
  1. There is only one person in Guam that can sign off and sell the Yona property or any other archdiocesan property: the Archbishop of Agana. To claim otherwise is to deny reality. However, as a way to protect the patrimony of the Catholic Church from the acts of wayward and renegade archbishops, the Catholic Church, in her wisdom and experience, codified under Canon Law (canons 1290-1298) that in order for an archbishop to sell an archdiocesan property, he must first obtain the written consent of the Archdiocesan Finance Council, the College of Consulters, and the Vatican. Archbishop Apuron  did not obtain our consent, let alone the College of Consulters and the Vatican, to transfer the Yona property to the RMS under a deed recorded on November 22, 2011.
  1. The fabricated story that we tried to sell the Yona property is as far-fetched as if we were accused of trying to sell the White House, or St. Peter’s Basilica, or Anderson Air Force Base. We were volunteers. We had no corporate authority to sign even a check, let alone selling off a piece of valuable property. The AFC is a consultative body. We typically met several times a year. Canon 492 provides in part that the AFC shall “… consists of at least three members of the Christian faithful truly expert in financial affairs and outstanding in integrity …” Sister Stephen Torres guided the many accomplishments of the Sisters of Mercy in Guam as its Treasurer for many years. Mr. Joe Rivera was the director of the Department of Bureau Budget & Management Research for Government of Guam until his retirement, and is now the Chief Financial Officer of Calvo Enterprises. Monsignor James Benavente oversaw the massive multi-million dollar renovation of the Cathedral Basilica and the restoration of the Catholic Cemeteries and founded the Archdiocesan Development Group. Mr. Richard Untalan has a degree in economics and law, is president of CU Holdings, and in his volunteer capacity, guided the massive renovation of the Cathedral Basilica, the construction of the multi-purpose gym at Bishop Baumgartner Memorial School, the reconstruction of St. Francis School, and the construction of the Boys’ Chapel at Father Duenas Memorial School. Sister Stephen was a founding member of the AFC serving 26 years, Monsignor James served 15 years, Richard Untalan served 12 years, and Joe Rivera served for 9 years.
  1. Fr. Pius himself admitted that this story is false.  In an email to Richard Untalan, dated March 11, 2012, in response to Untalan’s demand that he, as the Chief Catechist of the NCW in Guam, put an immediate stop to the dissemination of this fabricated story among the NCW communities, and after assuring Untalan that this story is indeed untrue, he emphatically stated to Richard Untalan that “I hope these things never happen/have happened/will happen!”.
  1. Statements such as “Over My Dead Body” are melodramatic and sensational attempts to portray and characterize Archbishop Apuron, Fr. Pius and the NCW as martyrs and the victims of persecution, fighting off some malevolent and powerful interests lumped under the collective name of “Tim Rohr and Associates”, which will do anything to sell the Yona property for their own profit and gain. We were fired for doing our job, too well apparently. We had no power or authority to sell archdiocesan assets. We did not stand to gain from the sale of the Yona property. Only the archbishop can, although now that the NCW/RMS is the owner, it alone stands to profit from it.   
  • We would also like to correct one other misleading impression propagated by said false statements. Contrary to what Archbishop Apuron, Fr. Adrian, Fr. Pius, and others are attempting to portray that the Yona property and the Redemptoris Mater Seminary/Theological Institute are one and the same in order to characterize any attempt to return the Yona property to the Archdiocese as attacking and destroying the RMS/Institute, the two are not one and the same. The RMS/Institute are institutions, separate and apart from the brick/mortar/ground of the property. I know you know this to be obviously true, but the misleading impression being created by them is that one cannot exists without the other, in order to block any attempts to return the title of the property to the Archdiocese of Agana. The viability of the RMS/Institute is not tied to the property. There is nothing sacred or historic about the Yona property. The RMS/Institute can exist anywhere other than on the Yona property, as the RMS previously did at FD prior to 2002. In fact, back in 2002, we were looking at a 60-acre property owned by the archdiocese in Umatac to build a seminary before the opportunity to purchase the Yona property surfaced.

Why then is Fr. Pius and Archbishop Apuron so vehement in their opposition to return the title of the property, which will certainly advance the cause of peace, reconciliation, and unity that Catholics in Guam desire?  Furthermore, if what they claim is true that the archdiocese is still the owner of the Yona property anyway, then resolve all doubt, dispute, controversy, and outcry by deeding the property back to the archdiocese. The former Rector of the RMS, Fr. Pablo Rodriguez, wanted to do just that, expressing that the RMS/Institute does not need the Yona property to exists, as it had on another piece of property. He was dismayed that the NCW had become too attached to the Yona property, or to use the terminology frequently used by the NCW, the Yona property had become the NCW’s idol.

  • We can only speculate why Archbishop Apuron, Fr. Pius, Fr. Adrian, and Fr. Edivaldo have fabricated the story that we were fired because we attempted to sell the seminary property. Let us look at the facts again: In a special AFC meeting on September 7, 2011, wherein Archbishop Apuron presided and wherein Attorney Ed Terlaje, the archdiocesan legal counsel was present along with the Finance Officer, Deacon Steve Martinez, the AFC denied the request of the seminary to transfer the title of the property to  the RMS. Archbishop Apuron agreed and directed us to directly transmit the decision of the archdiocese to the RMS. That was done on September 8.   On November 25, the AFC received a letter (please note that it was dated November 16 but not delivered until the 25, three days after the secret recordation of a deed transferring the property to the RMS, of which we had no knowledge at that time) from the archbishop stating that because we were ignorant of canon law, the transfer was merely an assignment, not alienation, and therefore was permissible. Our learned archdiocesan legal counsel, Attorney Ed Terlaje, responded in an email dated November 27, 2011 to the AFC, including Monsignor David the Vicar General, stating: “…’alienation’ and ‘assignment’ are words of distinction without a difference. Any documents containing these words would place a huge cloud on title to real property which would result in a protracted litigation and prohibitive cost to remove such cloud. Do you really want to risk title to the property conservatively valued at 75 million dollars?”

In an attempt to resolve this ongoing dispute with some kind of compromise, a meeting was called for December 5. However, that meeting was cancelled after Monsignor David, the Vicar General, accused us of “a vulnus” to the archbishop and after receiving word from the archbishop(who was in Rome) to stop this “nonsense.” At this point, we were scratching our heads as our efforts were sincere and earnest to resolve this issue to the satisfaction of everyone. Please keep in mind that we had no idea at this point that Archbishop Apuron, Monsignor David, Fr. Pius, Fr. Adrian and others had already secretly recorded the deed of transfer.  

So, after Archbishop Apuron had returned, a regular meeting was scheduled for the following month, January of 2012, but before we were able to convene, we were unceremoniously fired en masse. For three years, we were dumbfounded as to why we were fired, the reason being given at the time was that our terms had expired, which they had not. It was not until January 2015 when it was disclosed on JungleWatch that we were able to understand why.

Unbeknownst to us, Archbishop Apuron, with the help of Monsignor David, Fr. Pius, Fr. Adrian, and the NCW, secretly and without consulting and securing the consent of the AFC, let alone the College of Consulters and the Vatican, transferred the Yona property to the RMS and recorded the deed on November 22, 2011. This is why the November 16 letter was never delivered to us until after November 22 and why the Vicar General and Archbishop were so vehement in their reaction to us that we were holding a meeting to discuss the issue. They wanted to eliminate and preempt the possibility that we will discover during a meeting of the AFC that they had already secretly transferred the property, a disclosure that would have ignited a canonical firestorm. We were fired to hide the fact that the archbishop and others secretly and in violation of canon law, and perhaps civil law as well, not to mention their fiduciary responsibility to the Catholic faithful, gave away the Yona property to the RMS, a separate entity controlled by the NCW, for free.  

Si Yuus Mase.

Richard J. Untalan

Sister Mary Stephen Torres, RSM

Monsignor James L.G. Benavente
Joseph E. Rivera

Deacon Stephen Wm. Martinez

RELATED NEWS STORIES

KUAM: Former Archdiocesan Finance Council members speak out
http://www.kuam.com/story/32935584/2016/08/Wednesday/former-archdiocesan-finance-council-members-speak-out

Kiko i Čistilište

"The Madonna of Carmel and the Souls of the Purgatory," Giovanni Battista Tiepolo , 1730's
Teologija Kika Arguella je močvara poluistina, i evo još jednoga primjera. U ovom slučaju je riječ o “posljednjim stvarima”, a osobito o čistilištu.
"The Madonna of Carmel and the Souls of the Purgatory," Giovanni Battista Tiepolo , 1730's
“Gospa od Karmela i duše u čistilištu” Giovanni Battista Tiepolo , 1730-tih.

Pogledajmo što Kiko Arguello kaže u ovoj katehezi koja se nalazi u prvom dijelu Katehetskog direktorija Neokatekumenskog puta:

“Za osobu koja vjeruje u Isusa Krista, smrt je kao utonuće u san. Idete u krevet i zaspete bez da znate kada ste zaspali. Na takav način ćete i umrijeti, kao utonuće u san. Zato Crkva naziva mrtve “onima koji su usnuli u Gospodinu”. Umrete kao da ste usnuli i probudite se u uskrsnuću. U jedan hip prijeđete s ovoga svijeta u slavu, bez obzira na to jesu li ili nisu prošli milijuni godina. Zbog toga mi kršćani ne oplakujemo naše mrtve kao što čine pogani, jer naša braća i sestre koji su umrli su živi.” (p. 277)

Dopušta li ovakav opis posljednjih stvari ikakvo mjesto za posljednje očišćenje (čistilište) za kršćane? Ne. Prema Kikovom tumačenju, kršćani umiru i u isti čas prelaze s ovoga svijeta u slavu (raj). To je, ustvari, ono što mnogi oko nas vjeruju, uključujući najpobožnije protestante. Crkva, međutim, naučava nešto drugo. Dok neki ljudi ne trebaju pročišćenje nakon smrti i idu direktno u raj, mnogima je potrebna milost pročišćenja. Nema načina kako biste pojam čistilišta progurali u Kikov opis posljednjih stvari.

Katekizam nas uči, “Oni koji umru u milosti i prijateljstvu s Bogom, a nisu potpuno čisti, iako su sigurni u svoje vječno spasenje, moraju se poslije smrti podvrgnuti čišćenju, kako bi postigli svetost nužnu za ulazak u nebesku radost. To konačno čišćenje izabranih, koje se posve razlikuje od kazne osuđenih, Crkva naziva Čistilištem.“  [KKK 1030-1031]

To konačno čišćenje je Božje primjenjivanje Svoga spasenja na nama. To je milost, i to je izvanredna radosna vijest. To znači da će naša svetost biti STVARNA, ne lažna, i ne pridodana, kad prispijemo pred vrata nebeska. Zapravo, to nije samo radosna vijest, nego to je velika vijest! Bilo koji opis posljednjih stvari u navještaju ne bi smio izravno ili neizravno isključiti mogućnost Čistilišta, ali Kikova kerigma to jasno čini.

Zašto Kiko isključuje mogućnost Čistilišta? Upitajte vašeg neokatekumenskog katehistu?

piše Chuck White

Poveznica

Kikovi tabernakuli

piše Chuck White

Je li jedan od Kikovih dvoetažnih svetohraništa sagrađen u vašoj župi?

Premda katolici ne bi smjeli sumnjati da je Isus Krist prisutan među nama dok se naviješta evanđelje u liturgiji (KKK 1088), bi li bilo primjereno da se prostremo pred knjigom Evanđelja u znak štovanja? Naravno da ne bi. Mi častimo tu knjigu, ali ju ne štujemo.

Pogledajte onda te tabernakule u veličanstvenom sjedištu Neokatekumenskog puta, Domus Galilaeae, u Galileji i na drugim mjestima. Možete vidjeti da je svaki tabernakul dvokatan, s vječnim svjetlom na obje strane. U gornjem katu je pohranjen Evanđelistar, dok se u donjem katu nalazi Presveti Sakrament. Vrata tabernakula zatvaraju oba kata. Neo Tabernacle - sagrario-peces-768x1024
Ova slika uzeta je sa stranice http://neomerkaba.com/Wordpress/?lang=it, internet trgovine za neokatekumenske potrepštine.

cappella_del_santissimo_domus_galileaTabernacles

 

Kiko's Tabernacle at the Redemptoris Mater Seminary in Guam.
Kikov tabernakul u Redemptoris Mater sjemeništu na Guam.
scrutatio con N-D 26.3.10
Leđa okrenuta Presvetom Sakramentu, a Evanđelistar zaogrnut velom. 
Što je tu krivo?

Mi katolici štujemo Presveti Sakrament koji se čuva u tabernakulu, ali NE štujemo Bibliju. I dok je Isus “istinski, stvarno i supstancijalno” prisutan pod prilikama kruha i vina (KKK 1374 i dalje), On NIJE prisutan “pod prilikama papira i tinte” u Evanđelistaru. Umjesto toga, kao što smo prethodno rekli, On je prisutan u naviještaju evanđelja.

Službeno učenje Crkve naučava da je Kristova prisutnost u Euharistiji jedinstvena, a Kikovo zamagljivanje razlike između Kristovih različitih načina prisutnosti, ako nije heretičko, onda je duboko problematično iz ovog razloga: njegovi sljedbenici, pod utjecajem slike tih tabernakula mogu početi vjerovati da je Kristova prisutnost u Presvetom Sakramentu u svetohraništu jednako simbolička kao i Njegova prisutnost u Evanđelistaru koji se nalazi iznad njega.

Poveznica

Pismo vjernika Guama kardinalu O’Malleyu

DRAGI KARDINALE O’MALLEY

piše Chuck White


Njegova Uzoritost Sean Cardinal O’Malley OFM Cap.
Nadbiskup Bostona
Predsjednik Papinske komisije za zaštitu maloljetnika

Vaša Uzoritosti,

Kao vjerni katolici iz Nadbiskupije Agana na Guamu, pišemo vam sa zabrinutošću da su četiri vjerodostojne optužbe za spolno zlostavljanje podnesene protiv našeg Ordinarija  i vašega kolege, nadbiskupa Anthonyja S. Apurona OFM Cap., nazvane “progonima” od strane utjecajnog vođe Neokatekumenskog puta, Kika Arguella.

Mnogi od nas na Guamu smo vidjeli da ste sjedili vrlo blizu gosp. Arguella na njegovom Susretu za zvanja, 1. kolovoza u Krakowu, u Poljskoj, kad se on referirao na te optužbe kao na “progone”:

Možete poslušati i pogledati kako gosp. Arguello spominje “progone” ovdje:

Vaša Uzoritosti, nesumljivo ste čuli gosp. Arguella kako kaže ovo na svom grubom talijanskom:

Luego che la isola di Guam…fratelli di Guam…ecco di Guam
sotto Giappone, nell’Pacifico
trecento fratelli di Guam.
Coraggio, preghiamo per vostro vescovo
preghiamo per voi e per tutta la persecuzione!

Molimo pročitajte naš prijevod riječi gosp. Arguella:

Onda tu je otok Guam… braća s Guama… ovdje, s Guama ispod Japana, na Pacifiku tri stotine braće s Guama. Hrabro! Molimo za vašega biskupa, molimo za vas i za sve progone!

Kao predsjednik Papinske komisije za zaštitu maloljetnika Pape Franje, kao kapucin i kao prijatelj Neokatekumenskog puta, sigurni smo da su vam poznate optužbe uložene protiv našega Nadbiskupa i to da je sigurno da se gosp. Arguello referirao na te optužbe kad je uvjeravao grupu s Guama da će moliti za Biskupa i “progone”.

Vaša Uzoritosti, kao predsjednika Papinske komisije, molimo vas da se usprotivite i odbacite Arguellovu karakterizaciju optužbi protiv nadbiskupa Apurona. One ne reflektiraju težinu s kojom se takve optužbe trebaju tretirati od strane Crkve i vaše Komisije.

Si Yu’os Ma’ase (Hvala vam).

Vjerni katolici s Guama.

Kiko molio za biskupa s Guama koji je osumljičen za pedofiliju

UŽIVO IZ KRAKOWA 2016: KIKO MOLI ZA APURONA I PROGON

Posted by LaPaz, Jungle Watch correspondant from Spain.
Kikove riječi neokatekumenima s Guama:
“preghiamo per il vostro vescovo e per la persecuzione”
“we pray for your bishop and for the persecution”
“molimo za vašega biskupa i za progon”
https://youtu.be/ReuTwGK5hnk
Kardinal Sean O’Malley, koji je na čelu Papinske komisije za zaštitu maloljetnika, bio je prisutan dok je Kiko izgovarao te riječi.

Kikove menore

kikos_CAMINO-739869223_Fx7tW-M

piše Chuck White

Za mnoge je katolike iritantna neokatekumenska praksa zamjenjivanja križa na njihovim “oltarima” s nečim što izgleda kao židovska menora.  Zašto to čine?  Postoji li neki skriveni razlog?

cop

Daniel Lipschitz, židovski obraćenik na katoličku vjeru i bivši katehist itinerant Neokatekumenskog puta, jednom je izazvao Kika  u svezi korištenja menore u neokatekumenskoj liturgiji. U svojoj autobiografiji, “L’immondizia Ama Dio”(“Smeće ljubi Boga”), Daniel piše:

Drugi put sam pokušao utjecati na promjenu njegova mišljenja za jedan liturgijski detalj. Tijekom mise Puta, hanuka se stavlja na stol, osmokraki svijećnjak koji se užiže tijekom osam dana koliko traje Hanuka blagdan. Deveti krak nije ništa drugo nego pomoć kako bi se svaki dan upalilo svijetlo, do osmog dana blagdana. Upozorio sam Kika da devetokraki svijećnjak, koji se pali na svim euharistijskim slavljima Puta, nema smisla u liturgiji. Iznerviran, nije me htio slušati: rekao je da broj devet predstavlja evangelizaciju. Možda, ali broj osam je za Židove, među mnogi drugim značenjima, Mesijin broj; očito da u kršćanstvu taj broj predstavlja Isusa Krista. S tom izjavom rasprava je bila završena. str. 141

Daniel je, naravno, bio apsolutno u pravu. Posuđivati svijećnjak iz židovske hanuka tradicije za upotrebu u slavlju katoličke euharistije nema nikakvog smisla iz više razloga.

lampstandbk
Temple Lampstand, Exodus 25:31-40

Prvo, Hanuka menora nije biblijska menora.  U Izl 25, 31-40, čitamo o sedmokrakoj menori koju zapovijeda Bog za korištenje u Hramu.

Nakon Makabejskog ustanka protiv Seleukovića, makabejci ponovno uspostavljaju pravo bogoslužje u Hramu (140. prije Krista). Hanuka je židovski blagdan koji slavi ponovnu posvetu Hrama.

Prije ponovne ustanove hramskog bogoštovlja, makabejci su obnovili sve sveto posuđe i odjeću u Hramu. Slavlje Hanuke prisjeća se čuda u kojem je mala količina ulja za posvećeni svijećnjak, koja je bila samo za jedan dan, trajala osam dana.

10370335-largeIz tog razloga, Hanuka menora ima osam glavnih svjetala, i deveto “pomoćno” svjetlo koje se naziva “shamash” (“sluga” ili “čuvar”).  To svjetlo se koristi kako bi se upalilo druga svjetla i spremno je “služiti” u slučaju da se neko drugo svjetlo ugasi. Ono stoji ili više ili niže ili odijeljeno od ostalih svjetala. Evo nekih tipičnih Hanuka menora:

 

Kiko Arguello je, dakle, zamijenio križ na svojim “euharistijskim stolovima”, s modificiranom verzijom Hanuka svijećnjaka. U Kikovim “menorama”, svih devet svjetala su horizonatalno poravnati jedan s drugim, i ne postoji “shamash” ili pomoćno svjetlo:

Kiko's menorah
A typcial Kiko-monorah

Štoviše, broj “devet” nema poznate poveznice ni u židovskoj niti u kršćanskoj tradiciji s Mesijom, niti s euharistijom.  Niti je, u tom smislu, broj devet povezan na bilo koji način s “evangelizacijom”, kao što je Kiko rekao Danielu.

Broj “osam”, međutim, ima značenje za kršćane. Možda se sjećate da je Bog odmorio sedmi dan (Post 2,2), što je temelj za židovsko držanje Šabata, a Isus je ustao iz groba dan nakon Šabata (Mt 28,1), u “osmi dan”.

Ali Kiko Arguellovo usvajanje modificirane verzije Hanuka svijećnjaka za slavlje euharistije možda nije samo primjer njegova pokušaja stvaranje pseudožidovskog “brenda” za svoju sektu. Ne, to bi mogli biti puno više od toga.

il-fango-e-il-segreto-gnosi-peccato-e-nueva-estetica-neocatecumenale-lino-listaLino Lista, plodni kritičar Neokatekumenkog puta, raspravlja o Kikovom razgovoru s Danielom Lipschitzom u svojoj knjizi,  “Il Fango e il Segreto“:

“Štogod mislili po pitanju simbolizma, izmisliti svijećnjak kakav je Kiko izmislio, riskirate da netko može pretpostaviti da on zapravo znači “rekonstrukciju Crkve i njezinu ponovnu posvetu”, kao što je jedan rimski neokatekumenom jednom ustvrdio. To stanovište, ta rekonstrukcija Hrama, je manje čudna nego značenje “evangelizacije” koje njegov tvorac Kiko pripisuje.  To nas poziva na razmišljanje o odnosu između slike (Kikova svijećnjaka) i restauracije židovskog svetišta u priči o Makabejcima i Talmudu. Ideja rimskog neokatekumena o vezi između vidljivog Kikova objekta i značenja koje mu se pripisuje… je logičnije od Kikova iznenadnog i iritantnog objašnjenja.” str. 70-71

Lista je pogodio bit stvari.

Sjetite se da slavlje Hanuke komemorira ponovnu ustanovu i obnovu pravog bogoštovlja u Hramu i čudesnog događaja koji je vezan za to. Imajte na pameti također da je vlastiti simbol na oltaru ili blizu njega tijekom mise, prema Općoj uredbi Rimskog misala (GIRM 308), križ. GIRM to zahtjeva, naravno, jer je euharistija žrtva koja “re-prezentira (čini prisutnim) žrtvu križa” (KKK 1366).

Neokatekumensko korištenje Hanuke svijećnjaka znači naglašavanje činjenice da je njihova liturgija istinska, obnovljena liturgija te da euharistija i Kristova muka također, nisu u nikakvom smislu žrtva. 

Poveznica

Papa Franjo imenovao administratora neo-nadbiskupu Apuronu zbog optužbi za pedofiliju

Papa Franjo imenovao je nadbiskupa Savia Taia Fai Hona, tajnika Kongregacije za evangelizaciju naroda, apostolskim administratorom Nadbiskupije Agana na Gaumu kao odgovor na seriju optužbi za seksualno zlostavljanje protiv nadbiskupa Anthonya Sablana Apurona.

Nadbiskup Apuron (70) vodio je Nadbiskupiju od 1986. Nadbiskup Apuron i dalje ostaje nadbiskup, a nadbiskup Hon, kao apostolski administrator , privremeno će upravljati Nadbiskupijom.

Nadbiskupija je snažno zanijekala navode protiv nadbiskupa Apurona.

Poveznica 1

Poveznica 2

Na ovoj stranici želimo upoznati čitatelje s problemima u vezi Neokatekumenskog puta