Posted on 09/15/2006 8:49:34 AM PDT by NYer
In the ongoing saga in the Diocese of Orange, Calif., Bishop Tod Brown has formally responded to the Catholic lay group Restore the Sacred. The text of the bishop's letter (dated September 6, 2006), which was sent to a member of Restore the Sacred, is as follows:
I have been reflecting on the meeting I had with you and others from St. Mary's by the Sea Parish on the 10th of July. I was impressed by the love for our Catholic faith and the dedication to St. Mary's by the Sea parish that all of you manifested. You helped me to understand your concerns more fully and I appreciated the clear and respectful way that you answered my questions.
As I told you I would, I directed Father Martin Tran to present in your parish bulletin a fuller, and I trust, acceptable apology and clarification of his views on obedience, mortal sin, and kneeling. He has done this and has assured me that he is hoping to be able to work with you and all those who attend the parish in a respectful and productive manner.
One of the things that came out clearly in your description of the "traditions of St. Mary's" was that I and my predecessors did you no service when we allowed Fr. Johnson to deviate from the liturgical norms set out by church authority. You feel now a sense of betrayal and your request for a restoration of what you consider nine fundamental past traditions reflects your desire to hold on to an experience that has, in some important ways, nourished your faith over a long period of time. I apologize for the hurt and misunderstanding this has caused.
That having been said, let me address the particular requests you made in your document and in your presentation:
My decision on these requests is based upon my ecclesiology. What unifies us most is the Blessed Sacrament that we share at Mass and, most significantly, in the reception of communion. This is where there should be some uniformity in our life as Catholics. Although there is room for variety in music, preaching and the way these rights are celebrated, these all must adhere to the backbone of liturgical legislation set down by the church. Outside the Mass, there is great room for other rites and prayer forms (Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, 40 Hours devotions, the Liturgy of the Hours, novenas, etc.) which can be done in the "traditional" manner and with the sacred music that is so dear to you. There are even adaptations approved for the Liturgy of the Eucharist (Eucharistic processions, which I think you have had in the past, is one example) which you may wish to consider with Fr. Martin.
I recognize that this letter is likely a disappointment to you. You were hoping for so much more. Be assured that my decisions mean you no disrespect. On the contrary, I hope my clarity makes it possible for us, should you choose, to work together to preserve what you love about the Catholic Church in ways that match our liturgical norms.
In Christ Our Savior,
Most Reverend Tod D. Brown
Bishop of the Diocese of Orange
THE CAT IS LYING ON YOUR SHIFT KEY AND HELPING YOU WITH YOUR SPELLING?
WELL YOU LEFT CHRISTS CHURCH FOR A MAN MADE ERROR FILLED RELIGION GOOD FOR YOU I HOPE GOD FEELS THE SAME WHEN HE ASKS YOU WHY YOU FOLLOWED ERROR.
YES I AM -THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE TRUE CHURCH BUT RIGHT NOW AS IN THE PAST WITH ARIANISM IT IS INFECTED WITH MODERNISM
JOEBURNES2006
Since Sep 16, 2006
view home page, enter name:
~ About ~ Links ~ Contact ~ In Forum ~ Mail To ~ Return
JOEBURNES2006 hasn't created an about page.
*****************
Welcome to Free Republic. It's quite a change from DU, non?
What the bishop has just done here is called "mirroring". I learned about it in a time-management seminar I was required to attend back when I was managing a retail business.
Say a customer comes in and she's hopping mad that the lining dropped out of her new $500 skirt during a big presentation. She feels that your product has caused her personal amd professional embarassment and she's out for a full refund, plus your blood. AND she's causing a scene and potentially driving other customers away.
"Mirroring" this woman means listening to every word, with a non-confrontational body posture, and then basically repeating every word she said right back to her: "You're angry that the lining fell out of your new $500 skirt during a presentation. You feel embarassed personally and professionally." To which the customer in theory will feel GREAT RELIEF that you were listening, and understood her, and saved her from having to pitch a real fit in order to get her refund---and so her anger will melt away just like that, and you'll be able to cut her a refund check and get her out of the store in mere minutes and STILL keep her as a customer. Because she FELT you understood her, when all you did was repeat her own words back to her.
However---a lot of people use these technique to "handle" their opposition. Schools do it to angry parents and then go right on to do the very thing the parents were angry about in the first place. Churches also do this. I used to be an Episcopal and it sounds mighty familiar.
The one problem wih "mirroring" is that it does not work at all if the person you're mirroring knows what you're doing. :D
The bishop is trying to "handle" the congregation, instead of trying to answer them. And they want to be answered, not handled. They know the difference.
Unless Joe Burnes is trying to make SSPX look bad, it's not likely that he's a DUer.
DU slime react to the principles of SSPX like a vampire to daylight.
"Hardly, a simple method for that would be to absolutly excommunicate anyone who attends a SSPX chapel, and that has not happened."
No, your argument is not correct. The fact that the modernists haven't been able to excommunicate everyone who attends an SSPX chapel doesn't mean they wouldn't if they could. Several bishops have tried to sanction people who go to SSPX masses, and have been reversed (too gently) by the Vatican.
Additionally, the modernists cannot act too blatantly, because they still need to maintain plausible deniability, the pretext that they are operating out of faith and in the interest of the faithful.
It is true of both political and ecclesial leftists that they must hide their true natures and intentions from the people they plan to rule.
And finally, we must reflect that, were it not for SSPX, the Tridentine Mass would not today be available anywhere on the surface of the planet, to anyone. The modernists came that close to final victory.
"My point was not to fire off another war, but to point out a protest is not in keeping with Catholic practice. Thomas a Kempis would not protest, Padre Pio would not protest"
Thomas a Becket would, and so would Thomas Moore. Joan of Arc was instructed to take to the battlefield. I think you are completely mistaken about that.
"even when the Chinese Church is being chastized you don't see protest."
We don't see anything because of the news blackout by the Chicoms. None of us knows what is going on there.
"Protest is ineffective."
Do you really believe that? Amazing.
"The pretext for declining the Indult was given by those who protested, if they hadn't protested, they would have forced the Bishop to give a less sound reason."
A pretext is still a pretext, and therefore invalid and wrongful, no matter who gave it to whom. You cannot be paralyzed in the face of evil by the notion that evil will seize on any action as a pretext to do what it was going to do anyway.
Further, if they hadn't protested, the bishop wouldn't have had to give "a less sound reason." He wouldn't have had to give any reason to anyone. It was only the protests that forced him to go on record with a transparent pretext, demonstrating that he has no sound reasons.
Modernists in positions of authority are now abusing safeguards designed to protect faithful clergy to shield themselves in their wrongdoing.
Well, how nice that we went from "No, your argument is not correct" to "You are full of beans."
People who argue from the ecclesial left, as with those who argue from the political left, adhere to the principle, "Go ad hominem early and often."
From that alone one can see that your position is faulty.
"Moore did not lead a protest"
How did "leading" become a factor in this? He protested himself, by denying the king. The king gave him an order; he said no. This "leading" business is a straw man.
"and Beckett also did not protest."
Oh, really? And he suffered the ire of Henry II for supporting him in all things? Of course he protested.
Both these saints protested against kings when ordered to go against the Church; today we are being told to go against the Chruch by bishops, but the principle holds.
"Joan of Arc lead troops in a war that was already being fomented."
It wasn't "being fomented;" it had been underway for some time, and her voices told her to protest the enemy's position to the extent of killing large numbers of them.
Jesus Himself protested the moneylenders in the temple by whipping them off the grounds, overturning their tables, and generally kicking their butts. This is an excellent example to emulate.
"None of these Saints would even presume to protest against a Bishop of the Church who are in union with the Pope."
Immaterial, as they would *all* protest a heretic bishop who is in defiance of the Scriptures, the Holy Father, the Church, and Tradition. Which is what we are dealing with here.
"There are no Saints who lead a protest against a Bishop."
Firstly, the past tense of the verb "to lead" is "led." I only bring this up because you have made that mistake several times, which leads me to believe that you don't know how to spell "led."
Secondly, this matter of "leading" is a straw man, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
"Moore said clearly, "Henry VIII is wrong."
Just as these parishoners said clearly, "This priest and this bishop are wrong." The Church herself clearly holds that the laity have a perfect right to do just that.
"Beckett exercised his office and angered those in power, again no protest."
His actions were a protest.
"In both these cases the authority was not a Bishop, licitly seated."
So, you didn't bother to read the paragraph in my last note where I dealt with that?
"The Bishop is not a Heretic"
Sure he is.
"Sponsoring a protest is counter productive. That is indeed a statement of fact."
No, it's not. There are circumstances under which it is counterproductive, and others under which it is productive. Completely separate from the issue of productivity, there are times when it is an absolute moral duty.
"You are full of beans is hardly an insult. In this case it is a statement of fact."
Childish mud slinging.
John Paul the Great threw them out of the Church in Ecclesia Dei. Short of extreme penitence and maximum punishment of the SSPX, may the status remain quo. Ironically, many but not all of SSPX adherents are the first to claim that there is no salvation outside the Church when they are outside the Church themselves.
The Tridentine Mass SHOULD again be the normative Mass of the Roman Catholic Church. I attend a diocesan Tridentine Mass or one said by the Institute of Christ the King, both churches in communion with the pope and with our territorial bishop (i.e., a diocesan ordinary) who thoroughly approves of the Tridentine Mass.
Nonetheless, so long as there are schismatic cults like SSPX spitting upon the papacy and actual Catholic tradition, the restoration of the Tridentine Mass will be thwarted by its enemies on left and right. Fellay and his fellow excommunicates need to remember that no one died and left any of them boss of anything worth bossing and that abject repentance for their despicable revolution against papal authority would be a very good idea for each and every one of them before death catches up with them as it has already caught up with the apparently unrepentant ecclesiastical archcriminal Marcel.
I kneel at all the traditionally appropriate parts of the Tridentine Mass that I attend, including most especially for communion. The pastor (in communion with Bishop Doran) would not have it otherwise unless a recipient is physically unable to kneel.
BTW, the lunacy that Pope St. Pius X, author of Pascendi Domenici Gregis and Lamentabile Sane would have anything whatever to do with those who misappropriate his name in service to Marcellian evil is lunacy. He would, as did John Paul the Great, make short work of them, launching them into the outer darkness where they belong.
There is no unity between the Catholic Faithful (in communion with the Holy See) and the excommunicated enemies of the Church who call themselves SSPX. Nor should there be.
DSC: Actually what DU and SSPX really have in common is their utter hatred for legitimate authority.
You really have drunk the SSPX Kool Aid if you think that SSPX is responsible for ANYTHING positive much less the availability of the Tridentine Mass in the parish churches of many dioceses. I was married in a Tridentine wedding Mass in Connecticut, courtesy of the late Archbishop John Whealon, two years before Marcel and his co-conspirators and adherent gulls were excommunicated and declared schismatic.
Bishop Ferrario of Honolulu is the only case I know of in which a diocesan ordinary claimed to excommunicate people for attending SSPX Masses. As anyone actually familiar with the case and who practices honesty can tell you, the reason for the excommunications was that the individuals he tried to excommunicate had outed him as a homosexual who kept a former altar boy stashed in San Francisco for his weekend "recreation." Not only were the "excommunications" reversed but Ferrario was forced out as diocesan ordinary relatively promptly.
SSPX is in the very bad habit of telling its gulls the very self-serving (for SSPX) lie that you cite.
If you know of any other bishops who are said to have excommunicated Catholics for attending SSPX Masses, please provide names of bishops and "excommunicates", dioceses, dates and details.
Let me start by saying that I am no authority on SSPX, having been to only one of their Masses. Most of what I know, I learned here over the past 7 years. I have paid close attention to your arguments, and don't find all of them satisfying.
"You really have drunk the SSPX Kool Aid if you think that SSPX is responsible for ANYTHING positive"
Ah, yes, I remember your burning hatred for them.
"I was married in a Tridentine wedding Mass in Connecticut, courtesy of the late Archbishop John Whealon, two years before Marcel and his co-conspirators and adherent gulls were excommunicated and declared schismatic."
Do I remember correctly that you had to get special permission for that? Now that Archbishop Whealon has returned his soul to God, it might not be possible to (a) get permission or (b) find a priest who is able to say a Mass in Latin.
I haven't seen anything malignant or dishonest from LeFebre, or anything that justifies your white-hot opprobrium.
I still think it the case that only the SSPX saved the Tridentine from final oblivion, and if you want to convince me otherwise, you're going to have to provide strong evidence and argumentation.
"Christ taught us NOT to turn the other cheek, instead we should hold a protest."
So, Our Lord was silently obedient to the Pharisees, the whited sepulchres, the wolves in sheep's clothing, the vipers? Or did you miss those passages in your Bible?
"oppose the Bishops of the Church and protest them into obedience to the will of the people who are more Catholic than they are."
Even a Baptist is more Catholic than a modernist enemy of the Church.
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.