Replies

"Also, instead of whining about the Seattle Archdiocese, move to a Catholic one of which tyhere[sic] are plenty even in America. If you won't, then inquiring minds may wonder whether you are serious in your complaints in which case you place far too low a priority on your salvation compared to material considerations and whether you value convenience more than the Faith while insisting on service to your cultural tastes. I take it that you freely chose Seattle University in spite of its deviations in other directions."

Are you implying the Seattle Archdiocese under Archbishop Brunnett is NOT Catholic by telling me to "move to a Catholic one"? There will never be a perfect diocese, especially in our times, so one must pick their fights. What would you do if your bishop died and Archbishop Brunnett is transferred to your diocese? Will you keep moving until anything resembling orthodoxy is gone? You also seem to think that in the Seattle Archdiocese one's salvation could be in danger by practicing the faith here. Why should this be if it is Catholic, headed by what MUST be a truly Catholic bishop? How can one's salvation possibly be in danger by adhering to a Catholic bishop? How would I explain this to my bishop?

I would not have attended SU if I knew the pit it was before I started. I also thought: "what could be wrong with a "Catholic" university?" There were no alternatives at the time for those working needing night school classes (UW just started an evening program, but I am almost done).

I would like to say I am serious about my faith, which is why I attend the Traditional Latin Mass. It is certainly not convenient for me, as I have to drive several hours each weekend for Mass. It would be much more convenient to go to the NO "Mass" a few blocks away.

You are an odd duck - you deride the NO bishops and AmChurch almost to the point of calling them heretics yet say if I don't obey them I am schismatic. In your posting to me you quite openly admit the Seattle Archdiocese is unCatholic and dangerous to the faith. Are you saying Catholics should move to another diocese because the Seattle Archdiocese and Archbishop Brunnett are dangerous to the faithful here? Or is it only dangerous to those who are not invincibly ignorant such as myself? THAT is your apparent solution to fixing a "bad" diocese - our shepherds are incompetent so move away. What are you telling me about the pope who is indirectly responsible for the souls here and directly responsible for our bishop?

At least I never have to worry about you moving here, unless we get what you personally deem a good bishop.

Corpus: I have been where you ae when these troubles began more than thirty years ago and I listened (improvidently) to those who made the argument that we were right and Paul VI was wrong. I took the advice of a friend to subscribe to the Wanderer, cool off and think it over. I did. Therefore, I did not go over to the Russian Orthodox Church as I might otherwise have done. I then grew up and realized that Catholicism was NOT going to be reconfigured to my personal tastes, that there are bad bishops and always have been bad bishops. Each bishop is a successor of the apostles. Some: Hunthausen, Weakland and Lefebvre come immediately to mind, are successors of Judas.

I don't know anything about your Archbishop Brunnett who is rather unlikel to be transferred here to Rockford. You are the one complaining about Brunnett. You can transfer from eattle University. You can move from Seattle. I had the opportunity to visit Seattle for a week or so for a Young Republican National Convention in 1987. Outside our hotel, two competing groups of communist street thugs were shedding each other's blood in the street in front of the hotel until the Seattle Police personnel arrived to shed the blood of both by grinding their faces into the sidewalks with their shoes. Your weather is tolerable. At the very least, many of your fellow citizens of Seattle are not. I would not move there if you paid me to move there.

To remind those in schism but lacking the capacity to distinguish Catholics from AmChurch types, much of the American Church is in schism as E. Michael Jones reported in Fidelity twenty years ago was the view of Edouard Cardinal Gagnon, then of the Vatican Congregation on the family. For those who expect instantaneous results in accordance with their preferences and tastes, it is very exasperating, no doubt, to have to live through the imperfections of others when the pope could (in their imagination) hurl thunderbolts down to destroy the enemies of Catholicism. Of course many would need some lightning protection of their own, if he did.

Brunett, for all I know, may well be as schismatic as Marcel or even worse. What is your practical plan to resist Burnett to reform the Seattle Archdiocese back to Catholicism while yourself adhering to SSPX which is OUTSIDE the Church? Are you envisioning a press conference by Brunnett in which he apologizes to SSPX types, saying that he is thankful that they brought him to his senses, that the Novus Ordo is hereby suppressed throughout his Archdiocese and that he will be taking directions from such as Fellay and Williamson from now on, while renaming the cathedral as St. Marcel's in honor of the stiff-necked and deservedly excommunicated rebellious Gaul?

I have moved from Connecticut to Illinois because of the desire to live in a Catholic diocese rather than an AmChurch diocese. I have not told you to obey AmChurch or AmChurch bishops in error but rather to trust the papacy, trust the pope, and obey him.

You are schismatic if you adhere to the SSPX schism. JP II and his subordinates have made this clear. You have no obligation whatever to saitisfy me. Satisfy JP II.