Free Republic

>>>>>I’m pumped up about this election now. I just wish Palin was the top of the ticket. Maybe in a few years, huh!

Ditto, ditto, ditto.

So, we should worry about the forces of evil preventing you from watching racist cartoons? I’m thinking I may have better things to do today.

>>>>I suspect the idea is, if one lets one guy pass out information without permission, however justified his complaints, every person will have to be allowed to do so.

I agree, which is why they pastor was correc to remove him. Just because he should try, does not mean they should let him.

patent

Interesting thread. I think I take a somewhat different view than those expressed so far. I think he acted entirely correctly. He had a complaint, and he wants to organize the faithful to make a common cause to address his complaints. Under Canon law, he does have the right to do so, though of course, also under Canon law, the priest has the right to tell him to go away. And, given the letter, the priest was clearly correct to tell him to get off parish property.

So, he did what he should have, and the priest did what he should have. Now, the parishioner should continue organizing as best he can, but from off the parish property.

Some may protest that he should ask the priest before distributing literature on the parish grounds, but I know of no Church law to that effect, and the story does not tell us that the priest had issued some prior command to that effect, so I see no reason that the distribution of the literature was wrong. Maybe it contravenes the social mores of some, but that hardly makes it wrong.

patent

>>>>Not addressed in this article is precisely who would do the laying on of hands to ordain Fr. Ma, bishop. Any guesses?

This wouldn't be the first CPA bishop. They have many bishops, some of which Rome recognizes and soem it doesn't.

patent

>>> There are a number of valid reasons that the bishop may exercise his perogative. Unless the bishop is behaving in a manifestly immoral way, we must accept his decisions. Fr Altier, it seems, has.

It strikes me that you do not see a difference between obedience and questioning. Yes, Fr. Altier must take down the website, etc., in obedience. I am not, by my criticism, disobeying the bishop in any way. Nothing I've said violates obedience or implies I do not accept the bishop's authority to do the wrong thing. That proper duty of obedience hardly immunizes the bishop from criticism. They are two different things. Here, the criticism is entirely appropriate, entirely accurate, and entirely within the rights of the faithful. All the "perhaps" in the world won't change that.

patent

Feel free to grant the benefit of the doubt, but at times doing so is to ignore a bit of the reality. There is lots of history here, and this Bishop has a temper. The suggestion he is doing this silencing for the benefit of the priest is BS.

I agree. I've heard exhortations like this before somewhere. Still holding my breath, sadly.

patent

>>>I'm gonna barf. The first time I got fired, my mother WAS the axeman! And I deserved it!

The only time I was fired it was by my mom. I deserved it too. She rehired me when I calmed down and got my head straight.

patent

Every position I have any part in hiring for requires the individual to be able to act independantly when I'm not watching. I couldn't hire someone who can't do an interview/hiring process on their own. Seeking advice from others is one thing, bringing them is another.

patent

>>>Does anyone know how Bishop Harry J. Flynn ranks on teaching the truth other than this? I heard that his or a diocese close to his requires NFP for Pre-Cana.

He has a reputation as being relatively conservative, and if a recent homily at a funeral was any indication, he seems to be one. However, he has control issues. If a conservative disagrees with him on anything he goes nuts and attacks. Once he makes a decision, even a plainly bad one, he goes to irrational lengths to pretend it was the right one. The Rainbow Sash thing was an example. Arinze explicitly told him to stop. Most dissenters would come back and just ignore Arinze, but not Flynn. He doesn't want to be seen as a dissenter. So, he had to pretend that Arinze agreed with him, and stated as such publicly. Arinze had to issue a statement that made it clear Flynn lied. Very strange.

I don't trust Flynn or his administration. He was supposedly considered for the Cardinal's post in Boston, and I remember having mixed feelings, half hoping he would be removed from Minneapolis/St. Paul (my diocese) and half fearing the damage he would to the Church in Boston.

patent

>>>>“I can remember the days when we had more people up here with the priest than we had people in the pews,” Roarke said. “It looks like those days may be gone.”

I went to a daily Mass once where this was almost true. There were over 12 people up there, it took them twice as long to serve each other and sort out the mess than it took to serve the remaining handfull in the pews. If we hadn't brought the kids that day the "E"EMs would have outnumbered us.

IIRC, this was the day I decided I would never be an "E"EM

patent

That didn't take long.

>>>>1) When we see epithets like "splinter-sect" and "renegade" we can very well wonder why the SSPX and its followers would want to return to full communion with such uncharitable, not to say hostile and judgmental people as Rocco and his ilk. Why, for that matter, would traditional Anglicans or others want to?

I've met a number of SSPX folks for whom you could say the same, they were uncharitable, hostile, and plainly overly judgmental, yet I still want full communion with the society. In part because I've also met more than a number of people whom I considered very holy, and good friends. One cannot judge the fruits of a reunion by those who resist the reunion.

patent

To any who want to come back, welcome back. That said, I'd be seriously surprised to see all four bishops return, given the rather strong comments of the one in the past. Even if he did return though, there are other "bishops" out there, and the traditionalist movements will continue. Too much pride and power for that not to be the case. The Church will welcome back any who want back, and we will be better off for it.

patent

but Behnke said she had concerns about whether the affidavit might lead to discrimination if it ended up in the wrong hands. Pledging an active homosexual relationship, as the affidavit requires for gay couples, could potentially bar an individual from participation in organizations like the Boy Scouts or the military, Behnke said.

In otherwords, it will make it harder for us to lie. If we tell the truth here by stating we have relations, we can't lie as easily later to get access to those nice yummy boy scouts.

Whatever happened to just telling the truth in all forums?

patent

>>>OK, when was the Tridentine Rite suppressed? By what decree?

Narses, I have better things to do than argue SSPX fantasies again. There is one normative Rite for the western clergy. That is just how it is, and if you can't recognize that reality, like I said, its a waste of time to argue this with you. The Tridentine is valid, but its limited to the indult. The Novus Ordo is the normative Rite for the West. Sophistry hardly changes that.

paten

" You cannot deny the SSPX is using a different Mass Rite than the current normative Rite. "

Sure I can. The Tridentine Rite was never suppressed, it WAS the 'normative' Mass and it sill is valid and legal for every priest in the Latin Rite.

You have to be joking. While the Tridentine was once the norm, it is not currently the normative Rite. It just isn’t, and to deny that is to go beyond mere argumentation, it is to step into a fantasy land. Good luck narses, but if you can’t even admit what the current normative Rite of the Mass is, there is no point in discussion with you. It is absolutely pointless to respond to the remainder of your post. You are too far gone.

patent

>>>http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=44140&eng=y

OK, I read it. I'm not clear on what you are trying to convey with it. Which do you contend, that this article shows they are schimatic or heretical, and exactly what in the article do you think shows this? Because I see nothing new over what was in our article on this thread.

patent

>>>>http://sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/jews_guilty_of_deicide.htm

I see the link is to the SSPX, and that made me realize my post wasn't clear. I was referring to the Neocatechumal Way, not the SSPX. I had understood you to refer to both as schismatic/heretical. I would agree that the official SSPX is schismatic, and some are heretical. I disagree about the NW, as I've yet to see proof they are either schismatic or heretical.

patent