Posted on 12/30/2004 11:32:39 AM PST by Mershon
*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.
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?
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.
Also, credit should be given to the local sspx which does not seem to be trying to recruit others to their cause.
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?
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")
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.
Too bad Rome rolls their eyes at his blusters. His decree was as legitimate as the one directed towards the vindicated Hawaii six.
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 :)
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Got any problems with O'Malley's "Talking About Touching"?
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.