Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SSPX Can't Have it Both Ways (OR deliberate misrepresentations regarding their canonical status)
Christifidelis ^ | August 22, 1996 | Joseph Wilson

Posted on 12/30/2004 11:32:39 AM PST by Mershon

TO THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X: "YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!" Bishop Bruskewitz --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Foundation has received more compliments on the lead article in the last issue than any article which has appeared in CHRISTIFIDELIS since the newsletter began publication in 1984. The Diocese of Lincoln has received thousands of letters expressing support and gratitude for Bishop Bruskewitz's action and only an insignificant number criticizing him, so I am not surprised that our readers would react as they did. Even so, there is one category of criticism received by the Diocese of Lincoln and the Foundation which deserves a response. I am referring to the members and sympathizers of the Society of St. Pius X (hereafter the Society or SSPX) who objected to the Society's being named at all and its being lumped together with such groups as Call To Action, Catholics for a Free Choice, Planned Parenthood and the Freemasons. For an organization to be included in Bishop Bruskewitz's legislation three conditions must be present: (1) It must have members in the Diocese of Lincoln; (2) membership therein is deemed by the bishop to be perilous to or incompatible with the Catholic faith; (3) it asserts falsely that membership does not contradict membership in the Catholic Church.

Let me state my position right off the bat. There is no doubt in my mind that conditions (1) and (3) apply to the Society and there is persuasive evidence that condition (2) also applies. I support Bishop Bruskewitz's action and offer the following article in support of my conclusions.

Archbishop Lefebvre

Over 90% of the people who will read this article are Americans. Yet I hope that our good readers in Canada and other countries outside the United States will appreciate the use of some analogies drawn from American history which seem singularly on target. In the first place, some incidents associated with the birth of our country might give rise to a certain special sympathy for the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. We revere Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and many, many others who stood up to their lawful king, his ministers, his legislature and his army and navy rather than compromise their principles. The signers of our Declaration of Independence mutually pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor in a cause history would now regard as a foolhardy rebellion against a duly constituted regime which by eighteenth century standards was most benign, had it been General Washington instead of Lord Cornwallis who was forced to surrender at Yorktown in 1781. It is then understandable that we would instinctively feel some degree of admiration toward a man who in our own time stood up for what he sincerely believed was right in the face of powerful opposition.

Faithful Catholics of all nationalities who embrace the teaching of the Church and love the beauty of her traditional liturgy are as well inclined to have feelings of sympathy and gratitude toward Archbishop Lefebvre. We sympathize because we agree with much of what he said and we are grateful because the celebration of the traditional Mass would not be possible and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter would not exist save for him. Furthermore, in our constant and frustrating struggle against the kind of atrocities we see in "Straws in the Wind," we know that Archbishop Lefebvre was equally horrified. As the old Arab maxim goes, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Still, the sympathy, admiration and gratitude we may have toward Archbishop Lefebvre must not blind us to our duty toward the Church. It may be all right to consider the archbishop something of a latter day Patrick Henry, but only if we keep in mind that it was not George III who our Lord Jesus Christ was addressing when He said: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church" and "He who hears you hears me." Similarly, some have cast Archbishop Lefebvre as a modern St. Athanasius, suffering for his opposition to modernism much as the fourth century Doctor of the Church endured persecution and exile for fighting Arianism. This comparison falls short because the historical conditions are not analogous. Most of St. Athanasius' persecutors were themselves heretics, usurpers or intrusive emperors. One exception was, of course, Pope Liberius, who under duress condemned Athanasius in 357. By contrast Archbishop Lefebvre has defied legitimate holders of ecclesiastical office, including Popes Paul VI and John Paul II. It is beyond question that John Paul II is the legitimate successor of Peter and was not acting under duress when Archbishop Lefebvre manifestly violated the Holy Father's express, personal command by ordaining four bishops without the required mandate of the Holy See in 1988. Whether the act constituted schism in the strict sense of the word does not change this, nor do the differing opinions proffered by learned canonists.

The SSPX Today

Returning again to the American analogy, what that loose confederation called the United States of America would become was by no means certain when the Treaty of Paris was signed on September 3, 1783. There is not much doubt that Washington would have been crowned king had he wanted the job or that he and his generals could have easily established a military dictatorship. Conversely, the nation might just as easily have come apart, as it almost did 77 years later, and what is now the territory of the 48 contiguous states would contain a collection of smaller nations. What the United States was in 1783, what it was at various times between then and now or what it might have become is completely beside the point when one considers domestic or foreign policy matters in 1996. Likewise, what Bishop Bruskewitz had to consider was not what the Society was when Archbishop Lefebvre founded it in 1970 nor what it was when he illicitly ordained the four bishops in 1988 nor what it was at the time of his death on March 25, 1991, but what it is in the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska in 1996. It is from this perspective that we consider whether or not the SSPX meets the three criteria set forth in Bishop Bruskewitz's legislative act of March 22, 1996.

Membership And Activities

St. Michael the Archangel Chapel in Lincoln is not a building but an association formed for the purpose of providing for the celebration of the Traditional Mass. Ironically, the building it has used is a cemetery chapel which is also the site of Masonic and Buddhist ceremonies. The fact that the SSPX has recently conducted public worship there was acknowledged by the Society's District Superior, Father Peter R. Scott, in his letter to Bishop Bruskewitz, dated March 27 and since published by the Society.

The subject of membership is less simple. The SSPX does not have lay members in the strict sense of the word and none of its priest-members reside in the Diocese of Lincoln. If being formally enrolled as a member of the Society is what is necessary to incur the penalties legislated by Bishop Bruskewitz, then it is clear that no one in the Diocese of Lincoln has incurred interdiction or excommunication for being a member thereof. However, the obvious intent of the legislation was to deter Catholics from becoming so closely associated with any of the twelve organizations named that they would risk accepting those beliefs and practices which are in conflict with the Catholic faith. This means that what is really at issue is not formal enrollment but adherence. For example, if one were to regularly attend meetings and other public activities of Call to Action, participate in its illicit liturgies, subscribe to its publications, applaud its leaders and support it financially, then one could be considered an adherent and subject to the penalties established by law. The same could be said of the SSPX, so we must then proceed to determine if adherence to the Society is perilous to the faith and if it has claimed that such adherence by Catholics does not contradict their membership in the Church.

Perilous To Or Incompatible With The Catholic Faith?

Some 35 years ago, I worked in the purchasing department of a large corporation. One day we attended a training session where a company lawyer was to instruct us on the discriminatory pricing sections of the Robinson-Patman Act. To do this in an hour was quite a challenge, so he began by saying, with tongue in cheek, "This is a subject on which thousand-page books have been written and most of them are regarded as terse and superficial." Now that I am going to try to deal with a subject far more complex than the Robinson-Patman Act in a few paragraphs, I know just how he felt.

That which God has made known to us in order to be saved is referred to by the Church as Divine Revelation or the Word of God. This Revelation is to be found only in sacred Scripture and that teaching of the apostles which was not recorded in writing at the time. The latter is called sacred Tradition. "Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church...But the task of giving authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it." (Vatican II, , No. 10.) The Magisterium can be exercised in several ways. A solemn definition by the pope alone as well as a definition of a lawfully convened ecumenical council confirmed by the pope are protected by the Holy Spirit and, therefore, infallible. Also infallible is a teaching of the entire college of bishops, even while scattered throughout the world, in union among themselves and with the successor of Peter, when they agree that the teaching must be definitively held.

Anything which contradicts or seriously distorts this Word of God as faithfully interpreted and handed down by the Magisterium can surely be regarded as perilous to or incompatible with the Catholic faith.

The primary charge is that the SSPX contradicts or seriously distorts the Word of God as interpreted by the Magisterium appears to rest on its alleged non-acceptance of at least three of the sixteen pronouncements of the Second Vatican Council: The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, , the Decree on Ecumenism, , and the Declaration on Religious Liberty, . The secondary charge is that, by its defiance of the rightful authority of the pope and the bishops in communion with him, the Society has challenged the doctrine of papal primacy and the rightful authority of the bishops as lawful shepherds of their particular churches.

Bishop Bruskewitz has the authority to judge whether or not these charges are true insofar as they apply to what the Society and its adherents do within the Diocese of Lincoln. I have no such authority at all, either in the Diocese of Lincoln or anywhere else, so all I can do is express a private opinion.

Archbishop Lefebvre engaged in a lengthy dialog with the Holy See over the proper interpretation of Vatican II. Finally, in May, 1988, he signed an agreement with the Holy See in which he accepted Vatican II if interpreted in accord with sacred Tradition. In my view, that is the only way Vatican II or any other ecumenical council could possibly be interpreted. Unfortunately, Archbishop Lefebvre subsequently repudiated his

agreement and an examination of recent public statements of the SSPX, including the current exchange of correspondence between Fr. Scott and Bishop Bruskewitz, leads me to conclude that the Society has gone beyond castigating the distortions and spurious interpretations of the Council and has, for all practical purposes, rejected the Council itself.

As far as I am concerned, there is no argument that the SSPX has considered itself absolved from any obligation of submission to the pope or any diocesan bishop. It conducts public worship and administers the sacraments wherever it chooses without so much as a nod in the direction of the competent authority. It reserves the right to alienate itself from the teaching authority of the pope

and, in effect, has instituted its own canons of orthodoxy.

If I were serving on a jury trying to decide the Society's guilt or innocence, the evidence I have seen thus far would cause me to be inclined to vote guilty on the primary charge but I would want to see some more before casting a final vote. As to the secondary charge, I say guilty.

False Assertions Of Union With Rome

In a letter dated May 13 to Fr. Scott, also published by the SSPX, Bishop Bruskewitz states that the Society's chapel in Lincoln has claimed in advertisements in the local newspaper and telephone directory that it is "in full union with Rome." I would say that such a claim is deceptive, unless you go along with the Society's definition of what "Rome" is or, more important, what "Rome says." Whenever we hear the term "Rome says," we understand this to mean the official pronouncements of the Holy See. However, judging by a recent promotional leaflet distributed by the SSPX, portions of which appear at the end of this article, it seems that the Society would define "Rome says" as the private statements of current or retired officials of the Roman Curia, observations of canon lawyers living in Rome or elsewhere, dissertations written by individuals studying at pontifical universities or replies of a department of the Holy See to inquiries from members of the faithful.

The leaflet bothers me more than the newspaper or telephone directory advertisements because it went to a lot more people, most of whom live in dioceses where the bishop is not as vigilant as Bishop Bruskewitz. The leaflet's unmistakable message is that the SSPX and its priests are under no canonical sanction whatever and that the Catholic faithful are as free to attend Society Masses as they are to attend Masses celebrated in diocesan parishes. This is, at the very least, sheer balderdash and is obviously intended to entice the unsuspecting and the uninformed.

Some Difficulties With The Leaflet

The general difficulty I have with the leaflet is that it employs a non-sequitur which has nothing to do with the present case, i.e., whether or not the ordination of bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre without the mandate of the Holy See was intrinsically schismatic, and then leaps to the conclusion that the SSPX is perfectly O.K. Beyond that, I have very serious questions about the use of the statements of three individuals, none of whom has endorsed or is affiliated in any way with the SSPX.

Count Capponi did indeed make the statement the leaflet attributes to him. But he has also said publicly that, while he was a sympathizer of Archbishop Lefebvre, he was not a follower. Moreover, as the SSPX is well aware, in 1994 the "independent" traditionalist chapel of Our Lady of Fatima in Pequannock, NJ, received an offer from the Bishop of Paterson whereby the chapel would be regularized and served by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. A faction of SSPX adherents within the chapel membership wanted to reject the offer and demanded that Masses there be celebrated by Society priests, claiming that they were acting out of necessity according to c. 1323, 4 . In response and at my request, Count Capponi prepared an opinion wherein he said: 'If Bishop Rodimer's offer of reconciliation and the services of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter are refused, chose who continue to attend the Masses celebrated by priests of the Society of St. Pius X cannot any longer claim to be acting in a state of necessity as foreseen by canon 1323, 4 ."

Father Gerald Murray has written a very strong letter to the SSPX pointing out the outright errors made and quotations taken out of context in the extracts from an interview which appeared in . The citation in the leaflet would imply that Fr. Murray sees nothing at all wrong with attending SSPX Masses, when in fact he clearly said otherwise in the same article. Incidentally, Fr. Murray has since reassessed the arguments made in his licentiate thesis (not his doctoral thesis, as erroneously stated by the SSPX) and now considers his earlier interpretation of the state of necessity as too broad.

Cardinal Ratzinger's decision reversing the excommunication of six members of the faithful in Honolulu is used in an attempt to legitimatize the SSPX. As most of you know, the St. Joseph Foundation assisted in defending the "Hawaii Six" and I can say that the status of the Society was not at issue in that case. What was at issue was the conduct of the defendants which, while admittedly blameworthy in some respects, did not constitute schism. The records of the case show that the former Bishop of Honolulu, Most Rev. Joseph Ferrario, tried to use penal law to silence chose six Catholics who were calling the attention of the public to what they perceived as the bishop's follies and misdeeds. Cardinal Ratzinger has never explicitly or implicitly approved of the actions of the SSPX.

The SSPX And The Internal Crisis In The Church

I know that the Church is undergoing a terrible internal crisis. So does the SSPX, but I think our common understanding ends there. The St. Joseph Foundation now receives requests for assistance at the rate of over 2,000 per year and we know as well as anyone else just what faithful Catholics have to endure. Still, even if we cannot help them, I am confident that the vast majority will manage to bear their sufferings without refusing "submission to the Roman Pontiff or communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (c. 751).

If I may impose on our readers outside the United States just one more time, I will close with a final American example which I personally remember. During World War II, the former heavyweight boxing champion, Joe Louis, was drafted into the army. When the "Brown Bomber" arrived at the induction station, a reporter asked him if he did not think it unfair that he was forced to serve in the army of a country in which his people had suffered and were suffering so many injustices. Louis thought for a moment and said: "There's nothing wrong with this country that Hitler can fix."

I am by no means equating Archbishop Lefebvre with Adolph Hitler or the SSPX with the National Socialist Party, but the analogy remains an apt one. Terrible things are happening in the Church, but I don't see anything that the Society of St. Pius X can fix.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taken from the August 22, 1996 issue of "Christifidelis". To subscribe to "Christifidelis", please contact: The Saint Joseph Foundation, 11107 Wurzbach, #404, San Antonio, TX 78230-2553, (210) 697-0717, Fax (210) 699-9439.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provided Courtesy of: Eternal Word Television Network 5817 Old Leeds Road Irondale, AL 35210 www.ewtn.com


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: catholic; excommunicated; latinmass; lefebvre; schism; schismatic; sspx; tradition
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-107 next last
An excellent analysis of the shenanigans by the SSPX adherents and those who publish their propaganda.
1 posted on 12/30/2004 11:32:39 AM PST by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mershon

Thank You!


2 posted on 12/30/2004 11:34:50 AM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mershon; ultima ratio; sinkspur; Canticle_of_Deborah; Wessex; Land of the Irish; ninenot; ...


3 posted on 12/30/2004 11:40:33 AM PST by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mershon
I am by no means equating Archbishop Lefebvre with Adolph Hitler or the SSPX with the National Socialist Party, but the analogy remains an apt one.

He just did. Same old BS.

4 posted on 12/30/2004 11:41:03 AM PST by Land of the Irish (Tradidi quod et accepi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mershon; Land of the Irish; Grey Ghost II; ultima ratio

Getting desperate? Trying to divert discussion to another thread won't work.


5 posted on 12/30/2004 11:44:17 AM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mershon; thor76; MarineMomJ

I see this article is from the questionable Fr. Perricone's organization??? Say no more.


6 posted on 12/30/2004 11:45:40 AM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah; thor76; MarineMomJ

Christifidelis is actually the name of the newsletter of the St. Joseph's Foundation, which is a canon law organization whose head canon lawyer attends the Traditional Latin Mass regularly. And what you just did to the good Fr. Perricone was called "poisoning the well" and worse yet--detraction.

Fr. Perricone is a devout and traditional Catholic Priest. Read the article and weep.

Facts do have an effect on people--especially if it destroys their own cocoon or world view. But the errors and lies of the SSPX establishment need to come out.


7 posted on 12/30/2004 11:48:57 AM PST by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mershon

I don't have to post detractions about Perricone. The truth about him will come out sooner or later.


8 posted on 12/30/2004 11:58:24 AM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah; Mershon

Bishop Bruskewitz wrote the article, not Fr. Perricone.


9 posted on 12/30/2004 12:03:33 PM PST by Pyro7480 (Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, sancta Dei Genitrix.... sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mershon
An excellent analysis of the shenanigans by the SSPX adherents and those who publish their propaganda.

Why don't you analyze the perverted sex ed practices in Catholic schools which are sanctioned by your bishop down there in the low country?

10 posted on 12/30/2004 12:03:42 PM PST by Grey Ghost II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah

Except of course that it is NOT a newsletter from Fr. Perricone's organization, which is actually quite traditional--in that they keep the Faith in union with the Pope.

SSPX revised Mat. 16:18 "You are Lefebvre, and upon this Lefebvre I build my Church; and the gates of hell will NOT prevail against it."


11 posted on 12/30/2004 12:04:09 PM PST by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Grey Ghost II

An excellent analysis of the shenanigans by the SSPX adherents and those who publish their propaganda.
Why don't you analyze the perverted sex ed practices in Catholic schools which are sanctioned by your bishop down there in the low country?


Mershon: I think I see a non-sequitur... Hey, do any of you SSPX adherents know Latin. ad homimen, non sequitur=logical fallacies...

Propaganda always gets exposed.


12 posted on 12/30/2004 12:05:53 PM PST by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mershon

A good article, but there's little point to posting it. The SSPXers aren't going to be convinced by anything anyone posts here.

By the way, you may not have seen this, but the Religion Mod asked that threads on SSPX v. Catholic Church cease to be posted.


13 posted on 12/30/2004 12:06:24 PM PST by gbcdoj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

No. Joseph Wilson wrote the article, but it is ABOUT Bishop Bruskewitz's excommunication of SSPX adherents in his diocese, which by the way, was NOT overturned by Rome.

It also exposes all the other lies and misrepresentations the SSPX gives new people in their flyers when they visit their chapels.


14 posted on 12/30/2004 12:07:53 PM PST by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

Christifidelis is the organization founded by Perricone, is it not?


15 posted on 12/30/2004 1:00:44 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mershon

There was nothing for Rome to overturn. Bruskewitz's declaration was hot air, nothing more.


16 posted on 12/30/2004 1:01:59 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah; Mershon

"There was nothing for Rome to overturn. Bruskewitz's declaration was hot air, nothing more."


This is a joke about Rome overturning! Even Ratzinger has a rethink when bishops say boo! And Arinze goes and hides in the toilet when visiting hostile 'Catholic' universities. Rome now has no authority except that assumed by conservatives to bash traditionalists!


17 posted on 12/30/2004 1:27:00 PM PST by Wessex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
Bruskewitz's declaration was hot air, nothing more.

You consider diocesan particular laws passed in accord with Canon Law "hot air"?

18 posted on 12/30/2004 1:30:54 PM PST by gbcdoj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
No, Perricone's organization is Christifideles, "Christ's faithful", while these newsletter is Christifidelis, "for Christ's faithful".

What's so terrible about Christifideles anyway? Its objective appears to be opposing liberalism and promoting the Traditional Mass - sounds right up your alley.

19 posted on 12/30/2004 1:39:15 PM PST by gbcdoj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj
these newsletter

correction: this newsletter

20 posted on 12/30/2004 1:39:53 PM PST by gbcdoj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj; BlackElk; ninenot; Sean O L; sinkspur; Mershon; Religion Moderator; Land of the Irish; ...
A good article, but there's little point to posting it. The SSPXers aren't going to be convinced by anything anyone posts here.

*sadly, I think you're right.

By the way, you may not have seen this, but the Religion Mod asked that threads on SSPX v. Catholic Church cease to be posted.

*Makes sense. Everything has been endlessly rehashed and I doubt anything positive would be accomplished by continuously bringing the sspx war against the Church to FR.

Were it not for FR, few Christian Catholics would have even heard of the schism. I have never heard it mentioned in any Church I have gone to. It is alive only on FR and in the few schismatic rags which themselves have diminishing subscribers.

This schism wil go the way of all schism. It will continue to splinter and fade into oblivion remembered only by the most rabid defenders of lefevbre and that memory will die with them.

What will continue, thankfully, is the so-called Traditionalist Movement in union with Rome - the FSSP and the other approved apostolates/societies etc. I knew men in those groups in union with Rome and while we do not see eye to eye in matters of the Liturgy etc they are exemplary men; intelligent, faithful, manly, holy etc.

The attention ought to be focused on Traditionalists in Union with Rome. Those of us who prefer the restored Rite/Pauline Rite/Normative Mass will only be strengthed by having them remain within the Body of Christ as every act of virtue they engage in (and they are legion) strengthens the entire Body of Chirst.

21 posted on 12/30/2004 1:44:57 PM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mershon
Mershon: I think I see a non-sequitur... Hey, do any of you SSPX adherents know Latin. ad homimen, non sequitur=logical fallacies...

You post an eight-year old article with the sole purpose of trashing the SSPX. Exposing the skeleton's in your diocesan closet is fair game.

You have stated that you homeshcool your kids. Please explain why you shield your kids from the hierarchy you so vociferously defend?

22 posted on 12/30/2004 1:47:23 PM PST by Grey Ghost II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic
Were it not for FR, few Christian Catholics would have even heard of the schism. I have never heard it mentioned in any Church I have gone to. It is alive only on FR and in the few schismatic rags which themselves have diminishing subscribers.

I lived two miles from an SSPX establishment for four years and didn't know it. I asked my priest to discuss it with the parish. He told me that it was not an issue worth mentioning.

23 posted on 12/30/2004 1:54:25 PM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: kidd
Thanks for the witness, brother. I think your priest is wise.

Also, credit should be given to the local sspx which does not seem to be trying to recruit others to their cause.

24 posted on 12/30/2004 2:00:58 PM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Grey Ghost II

The Magisterium teaches parents have the primary duty to educate their children. That is Tradition.


25 posted on 12/30/2004 2:02:12 PM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic
The Magisterium teaches parents have the primary duty to educate their children. That is Tradition.

Then why is every bishop in the US obsessed with teaching sex to little Catholic kids. Are they not in union with Rome?

26 posted on 12/30/2004 2:03:43 PM PST by Grey Ghost II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Grey Ghost II
very bishop in the US obsessed with teaching sex to little Catholic kid
The Bishop has kept sex education out of Catholic elementary schools, while "chastity training" is taught in high schools, as the Bishop explains, with "parental involvement" and with "a very strong emphasis on educating wills as well as intellects, and on providing a strong pro-life and pro-Humanae Vitae orientation to students."

The biological aspects of sex education are taught, he says, "in a private kind of way by our natural family planning people, who take mothers and daughters, or fathers and sons, into this educational enterprise. We keep a strong sense of modesty and reserve." ("Lincoln, Nebraska: how a Catholic diocese was built")


27 posted on 12/30/2004 2:08:29 PM PST by gbcdoj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah

Desperation is an adjective which you ought to recognize, as it applies to SSPX and its FR adherents.

Roman Catholics are not desperate; rather, we are quite confident in Bishop Bruskewitz.


28 posted on 12/30/2004 3:11:21 PM PST by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ninenot

Too bad Rome rolls their eyes at his blusters. His decree was as legitimate as the one directed towards the vindicated Hawaii six.


29 posted on 12/30/2004 3:30:41 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Grey Ghost II
Dang, I had a good rsponse to your question and you don't even take the time to acknowledge it. That sort of behavior discourages me from responding again because my next response may also go unremarked about while you switch topics again - as you are doing right now.

You asked Mershon a question and an answer was supplied to that question. I see that gcbdoj was gracious enough to respond to this one already, so, I won't respond :)

30 posted on 12/30/2004 3:38:06 PM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mershon

This is really confusing. Even after going to the source link, I still can't figure out who wrote this article. Who is the author? What is their connection to the St. Joseph Foundation? Is the "Christifidelis" newsletter of the St. Joseph Foundation related to the "Christifidelis" organization of Fr. Perricone, or are they unrelated?


31 posted on 12/30/2004 3:46:57 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Bishop Bruskewitz wrote the article, not Fr. Perricone.

That's what it says at the EWTN site where the article is stored. But that is clearly in error as indicated by numerous places throughout the article where the author refers to himself as someone other than Bishop Bruskewitz.

32 posted on 12/30/2004 3:48:22 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
Fr. John A. Perricone

Founder, ChristiFideles Professor of Philosophy at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, New York

Mr. Charles Wilson

Founder and Executive Director of the St. Joseph Foundation

Advisor to The St. John Fisher Forum

* Mr. Wilson appears to have written the article

33 posted on 12/30/2004 4:02:32 PM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mershon
No. Joseph Wilson wrote the article

I doubt that. The author uses the first person voice to refer to the Saint Joseph Foundation and it is identified as coming from the newsletter of the Foundation, whose founder and director is a man named Charles M. Wilson (http://www.st-joseph-foundation.org/stjf-staff.htm). Joseph Wilson is a priest in brooklyn.

So, out of the list of possible authors, Charles Wilson is much more likely than Bruskewitz, Perricone or Joseph Wilson.

34 posted on 12/30/2004 4:06:26 PM PST by CatherineSiena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic
You asked Mershon a question and an answer was supplied to that question. I see that gcbdoj was gracious enough to respond to this one already, so, I won't respond :)

Not sure what you are referring to but a defense of "chastity training" is the answer. Chastity training is another neo-cat term for sex ed.

35 posted on 12/30/2004 4:10:54 PM PST by Grey Ghost II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
His decree was as legitimate as the one directed towards the vindicated Hawaii six.

You realize that the author of this piece was the canon lawyer who defended the "Hawaii six"? He even mentions it in the article.

Cardinal Ratzinger's decision reversing the excommunication of six members of the faithful in Honolulu is used in an attempt to legitimatize the SSPX. As most of you know, the St. Joseph Foundation assisted in defending the "Hawaii Six" and I can say that the status of the Society was not at issue in that case. What was at issue was the conduct of the defendants which, while admittedly blameworthy in some respects, did not constitute schism. The records of the case show that the former Bishop of Honolulu, Most Rev. Joseph Ferrario, tried to use penal law to silence chose six Catholics who were calling the attention of the public to what they perceived as the bishop's follies and misdeeds. Cardinal Ratzinger has never explicitly or implicitly approved of the actions of the SSPX.

36 posted on 12/30/2004 4:13:06 PM PST by gbcdoj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj
The biological aspects of sex education are taught, he says, "in a private kind of way by our natural family planning people

Most NFP people I'm aware of are pushing "Catholic birth control". They should be kept away from innocent children and teenagers.

Catholic sex ed is as simple as this:

ANY sexual activity outside of marriage is a mortal sin.

37 posted on 12/30/2004 4:14:49 PM PST by Grey Ghost II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
The author is Charles Wilson. He's not related to Christifideles. Here is the original source link: http://www.st-joseph-foundation.org/cfd14-4.htm. It says "By Charles M. Wilson" there.
38 posted on 12/30/2004 4:17:00 PM PST by gbcdoj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mershon

Bishop Bruskewitz is one of a crowd of pseudo-Catholic prelates who are only relatively conservative, but are actually left of center--which is where conservative Catholicism is these days. He accepts the Novus Ordo--so it's no wonder he thinks and says as he does. He is very full of himself, besides.

But the issue is larger than he is--and larger than the Pope himself. It is whether the faith as expressed in Tradition is prior to the heterodox papacy which now rules the Church. When a pontiff is opposed to Tradition, then what should Catholics do--follow the Pope and his novelties, or follow Tradition and be numbered among those who hold onto the ancient faith?


39 posted on 12/30/2004 4:17:22 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj; Mershon; mershonathome

Got any problems with O'Malley's "Talking About Touching"?


40 posted on 12/30/2004 4:18:58 PM PST by Land of the Irish (Tradidi quod et accepi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish

Yes.


41 posted on 12/30/2004 4:20:27 PM PST by gbcdoj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

Let Jesus settle it. He advised us to beware of false prophets, those who looked like sheep, but were really wolves. He said by their fruits we would know them. A good tree bears good fruit, a bad tree produces rotten fruit. What have been the fruits of the recent papacies? Try looking at the horror more objectively--we have a pope who organizes prayer festivals to false gods. How can such a man lead his Church through the current crises?

And here is St. Paul himself showing us how to discern the true from the false as well. "If we, or an angel come down from Heaven, should preach to you a gospel other than the one I have preached, let him be anathema." In other words, we must hold onto what has always been taught, not chase after new doctrines.

JPII preaches a new humanist gospel, novelties never ever preached before by any pontiff--that Jews need not be converted, that they have no need of Jesus as their redeemer, that all religions are somehow good, that all men are somehow saved. Such doctrines were never taught before in the Catholic Church. And even if he does not himself teach these novelties in so many words--he teaches them by praxis, or by remaining silent in the face of myriad novel pronouncements on his behalf.


42 posted on 12/30/2004 4:29:15 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
JPII preaches a new humanist gospel, novelties never ever preached before by any pontiff--that Jews need not be converted, that they have no need of Jesus as their redeemer, that all religions are somehow good, that all men are somehow saved.

These are indeed weighty allegations. Of course, I can list texts of JP II denying all of those - so where are the ones of him affirming them? The first three are contrary to Dominus Iesus.

43 posted on 12/30/2004 4:30:53 PM PST by gbcdoj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
COMMISSION FOR RELIGIOUS RELATIONS WITH THE JEWS

Jesus affirms (ibid. 10:16) that "there shall be one flock and one shepherd". Church and Judaism cannot then be seen as two parallel ways of salvation and the Church must witness to Christ as the Redeemer for all, "while maintaining the strictest respect for religious liberty in line with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council (Declaration Dignitatis Humanae)" (Guidelines and Suggestions, I).


44 posted on 12/30/2004 4:32:28 PM PST by gbcdoj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ninenot; Canticle_of_Deborah; Mershon

"Desperation is an adjective which you ought to recognize, as it applies to SSPX and its FR adherents"

What a silly statement. If the SSPX were so desperate and unsure of itself, then why was it Rome who initiated the overtures for reconciliation? And please don't tell me it was out of some motive of charity. Baloney. Rome was embarrassed by the scandal represented by its own intolerance for the Church's own past and for Catholic Tradition in general. People can put two-and-two together, they can smell Rome's modernism a mile away, they understand that intolerance for Catholic Tradition exists on a very profound level. Contrariwise, the SSPX knows it holds onto the traditional faith, that it is preserving the Catholic heritage in the face of Rome's intensifying corruption. That is why it is content to accept the slanders of people like you--and Bishop Bruskewitz. By such persecutions, despite its many human faults, it grows in sanctity and more and more resembles Christ.


45 posted on 12/30/2004 4:40:12 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj; ultima ratio

“I wish to say that the document Dominus Jesus does not state that everybody needs to become a Catholic in order to be saved by God. On the contrary, it declares that God’s grace, which is the grace of Jesus Christ according to our faith, is available to all. Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism …. is salvific for them [the Jewish people], because God is faithful to his promises.”

Cardinal Walter Kasper


46 posted on 12/30/2004 4:41:11 PM PST by Land of the Irish (Tradidi quod et accepi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
With the coming of the Saviour Jesus Christ, God has willed that the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity (cf. Acts 17:30-31). This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism “characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ‘one religion is as good as another'”. If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation ... Indeed, the Church, guided by charity and respect for freedom, must be primarily committed to proclaiming to all people the truth definitively revealed by the Lord, and to announcing the necessity of conversion to Jesus Christ and of adherence to the Church through Baptism and the other sacraments, in order to participate fully in communion with God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus, the certainty of the universal salvific will of God does not diminish, but rather increases the duty and urgency of the proclamation of salvation and of conversion to the Lord Jesus Christ.

47 posted on 12/30/2004 4:48:45 PM PST by gbcdoj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: kidd

Like somebody said, an oak tree is an acorn that held its ground. SSPX had only about 150 priests when the motu proprio was written in 1988. It is now over 400 priests-strong and growing. It has chapels in over 60 countries and numbers over 1,000,000 adherents worldwide. More than its numbers is its influence. It is about one quarter-part of a global traditionalist movement--which is itself the most dynamic aspect of the Church today--but which is studiously ignored by the revolutionary Church. Yet it is the traditionalist movement that is most influential and powerful force on the culture--as exemplified, for instance, by Mel Gibson's film, which came out of the heart of the traditionalist ethos.


48 posted on 12/30/2004 4:52:49 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj
Indeed, the Church, guided by charity and respect for freedom, must be primarily committed to proclaiming to all people the truth definitively revealed by the Lord, and to announcing the necessity of conversion to Jesus Christ and of adherence to the Church through Baptism and the other sacraments, in order to participate fully in communion with God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Do you really think Kasper is doing this?

49 posted on 12/30/2004 4:53:33 PM PST by Land of the Irish (Tradidi quod et accepi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish

Is Kasper JP II?


50 posted on 12/30/2004 4:56:35 PM PST by gbcdoj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-107 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson