Replies

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.

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.

General, ya still got it!! Thank you for the pings.
Cap 'n... I haven't seen you much, but thought you'd certainly get a chuckle here. Pax et bonum.

"...those who made the argument that we were right and Paul VI was wrong."

But now you tell me to say my bishop is wrong. That Archbishop Hunthausen, who has not received any kind of censure from Rome (as far as I can find), and who recently had a school of theology at Seattle U named after him is a Judas. How do you make these arbitrary decisions as to bad/good bishops? Where do you draw the line of who is a schismatic bishop and who is not? That is, how do you know your bishop is not a Judas?

"To remind those in schism but lacking the capacity to distinguish Catholics from AmChurch types, much of the American Church is in schism..."

So would I be in schism if I attend a NO church/"Mass" in my diocese? And again you claim the Seattle Archdiocese is not Catholic ("What is your practical plan to resist Burnett to reform the Seattle Archdiocese back to Catholicism..."). I have yet to hear Rome declare any current US bishops are schismatic, so how could there be a schism if most US bishops were appointed by JPII himself? How am I to trust JPII as you implore me to do is this is so? Do you believe the pope appointed and maintains schismatic bishops in the church? You see, you confuse me when you say you had to "grow up" and could not do things as you preferred to do them, then claim our duly appointed bishops are in schism. You prefer to dictate on FR who you believe is schismatic and who is not. Again, how will I be obeying JPII which you implore me to do by claiming one of the bishops he appointed is schismatic?

I prefer to listen to those who present an arguement I can at least follow, such as UR who has posted a valiant defense of Archbishop Lefebvre a couple weeks ago. How can I listen to someone who claims our bishops are in schism when Rome has never made such a statement? How can I trust the papacy if he is giving us what you claim are schismatic bishops?