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
"Yes, and wasn't Beckett's protest against the King and not against the Pope?"
I discussed that in an earlier note.
Does one really wish to say that it's meritorious to protest against a king who orders one to go against the Church, but not to protest against a bishop who orders one to go against the Church?
Does an order to go against the Church gain legitimacy if its source is a bishop?
Because Beckett WAS the Bishop -- the Archbishop of Canterbury, back when that title really meant something.
Look, I think you have to be ready to dissent if something is happening that is wrong in your estimation. You make your complaint, if it is denied you don't go and quit the church because you don't like this bishop, you defund him and go somewhere that DOES provide the masses and philosophy of Catholicism that you need.
People get so attached to their parishes, and I can understand that, but if it means tacitly condoning error to stay there, what are ya gonna do?
The Bishop IS the Church in his own diocese.
That doesn't sound as much fun.
"The Bishop IS the Church in his own diocese."
Sorry, I don't think so. They Church is the supernatural Bride of Christ, and does not inhere in any individual.
History shows us that there have been bad bishops, and even bad popes.
Obviously, I can't speak for other Dioceses in the USA.
Weakland did NOT give permission for the Old Rite Mass celebrated from 1970-1978 (??) but did not interfere, either.
It was only when some idjit opened his mouth to the local newspaper that Weakland told the celebrant to knock it off. He didn't...and until Weakland countered with his OWN Old Rite (the one I frequently attend) there was no "legit" OR Mass up here. I'd guess that was for 4-5 years or so.
In the meantime, a number of other OR Masses started up, some licit, some not.
In Europe there was another movement besides SSPX which was also influential--Una Voce. They had a small branch office in the USA.
Most likely the "positive pressure" of Una Voce combined with the "negative pressure" of SSPX (who knows in what proportions?) motivated the Indult.
There are two stories on "who done what" re the Vat/Lefebvre agreement. Obviously, one can believe whichever one ...
But the Vatican (largely Jos. Ratzinger) had no good reason to double-cross Marcel.
It's just possible (is it not) that Williamson, who is one of the more megalomaniacal folks around, yanked Marcel's chain, no?
Note well that SSPX is still resisting B-16. They claim that HE is a shady character, too. Is EVERY Pope a shady character?
As to Hawaii: the Vatican made two decisions. One was publicized by the SSPX; the other, leading to Ferrairo's immediate retirement, was not.
You presume that the Vatican's silence implies consent to the SSPX's propaganda, and you should know better.
It is more accurate to state that the Bishop has absolute authority in his own Diocese unless Rome reverses his decision(s.)
That principle has been used for the good by Bp. Bruskewitz, who has told "some woman" on the Queer Commission to go fly a kite.
And Rome backs Bruskewitz.
"There are two stories on "who done what" re the Vat/Lefebvre agreement. Obviously, one can believe whichever one ... "
I have never heard anyone deny the bait-and-switch scenario.
"But the Vatican (largely Jos. Ratzinger) had no good reason to double-cross Marcel."
I don't know why you say that. The modernists were frog-mmarching the Church toward ruin at the time, at pretty much the peak of their strength. I have heard that Ratzinger was a theological leftist in his younger days. And how about Kaspar the friendly heretic? There were (and I suppose still are) plenty of people within the Vatican who want to stomp out the Tridentine.
"It's just possible (is it not) that Williamson, who is one of the more megalomaniacal folks around, yanked Marcel's chain, no?"
I don't have enough information to say that it's not possible.
"Note well that SSPX is still resisting B-16. They claim that HE is a shady character, too."
I haven't heard before that they make such a claim. Do you have a link? As for resisting the Holy Father, are they doing anything beyond holding out for the right to celebrate the Tridentine and refuse to celebrate the N.O.?
"Is EVERY Pope a shady character?"
Well, not Pope Saint Pius X, certainly. Of the recent popes, excluding Benedict XVI who just acceded, there are things that make you go hmmm.
"As to Hawaii: the Vatican made two decisions. One was publicized by the SSPX; the other, leading to Ferrairo's immediate retirement, was not."
That's interesting, but not terribly informative. Besides, I never said that Ferrairo's retirement had anything to do with the Tridentine, just that he tried to sanction some people for attending SSPX Masses.
"You presume that the Vatican's silence implies consent to the SSPX's propaganda, and you should know better."
I do presume that if the Vatican could rebut the bait-and-switch story, they would. If there is some reason to doubt that, I'd like to hear it.
There is NO reason for the Vatican to rebut the SSPX's story on the turnaround publicly--so they don't. It's called "Romanita," and also is known as tact. There are lots of souls at stake, and sometimes pushing too hard brings results worse than simply taking the attacks (from SSPX, for example.) The Vatican is not about to issue a newsletter of clarification, for your benefit or for mine.
In addition, it's not merely the Old Rite Mass, as you seem to think. Were that the case, the SSPX SHOULD have long ago jumped back into the Church with the issuance of the Indult.
SSPX has argued that the document on religious freedom is erroneous. There's another item from VatII which they ALSO think is erroneous (maybe Nosta Aetate??)--in any case, they have what they consider to be doctrinal problems w/VatII.
As to B-16--you said exactly what the SSPX would like you to have said: 'he was a lefty theologian before VatII...'
That's possible, of course. On the other hand, it's also possible that he was NOT. I can tell you from reading a good deal of his writings (since 1984) that he is NOT a "lefty" today, nor since the early 1980's. In any case, what he's said so far in his reign is certainly unexceptionable--if anything, the wacko lefties are wringing their hands over everything he's said--in fact, he's co-opting their "Church of Love" line; unfortunately for them, he's also put the teeth back into the doctrine of love.
"There is NO reason for the Vatican to rebut the SSPX's story on the turnaround publicly"
I disagree with that most strongly. If the SSPX is lying, and thereby leading people astray, the Vatican has an absolute, inescapable moral duty to let the truth be known.
"sometimes pushing too hard brings results worse than simply taking the attacks"
I find it hard to see a simple statement as "pushing too hard."
"The Vatican is not about to issue a newsletter of clarification, for your benefit or for mine."
How terrible it would be to believe that the Vatican allowed so momentous a lie to stand unchallenged. That would be worse than finding out with certainty that the bait-and-switch story is true.
"Were that the case, the SSPX SHOULD have long ago jumped back into the Church with the issuance of the Indult."
Well, no, because previous attempts to reconcile have been derailed by the insistance of modernists that the SSPX agree to celebrate, and more, to concelebrate, the N.O. Further, the Indult is more comparable to giving wolves permission to become vegetarians than anything else. Not really much of a remedy.
"in any case, they have what they consider to be doctrinal problems w/VatII."
I don't know that those are deal-breakers.
"As to B-16--you said exactly what the SSPX would like you to have said: 'he was a lefty theologian before VatII...'"
Who cares what anybody would *like* me to say? I said what I believe to be the truth.
"I can tell you from reading a good deal of his writings (since 1984) that he is NOT a "lefty" today"
I brought it up solely in response to your assertion that then-Cardinal Ratzinger would not have tried to sabotage the Tridentine.
"if anything, the wacko lefties are wringing their hands over everything he's said"
I certainly hope so. And I have hope that I will live to attend if not the Tridentine, at least a reverent and liturgically unexceptional N.O.
Apparently compared to you I live in Paradise. I can find at least 5 "straight-up" NO Masses without driving more than 20 miles 1 way, PLUS a Diocesan-authorized TridRite.
The Vatican rarely issues rebuttals to distortions in cases like that of the initial SSPX agreement. In contrast, the Vat often issues direct rebuttals to heresy. However, notice that when someone publishes a book which is questionable, the Vat generally conducts a lengthy correspondence with the author to attempt to correct the book. NONE of that correspondence is generally available.
My conclusion is that 'in a case of ongoing negotiations, we will not disclose specific disagreements nor specific conversations/writings.' I would guess offhand that the Vat wants to preserve a "good face" for ALL PARTIES when the negotiations conclude. Of course, negotiations w/SSPX never really broke down completely, albeit there were some llllllooooooonnnnnnnnggggggggg pauses.
Granted, this is an "un-American" way to proceed...but that's not all bad.
Remember that SSPX has not been declared to be "leading people astray." Only the Bishops and priests of SSPX are formally excommunicandi. Virtually all the laypeople are NOT excommunicated. It's interesting, too, that the situation is blatantly ambiguous.
As to the 'other doctrinal problems' being "dealbreakers": we shall see. I suspect that some of the SSPX muckety-mucks will MAKE them into dealbreakers if the Vat offers the Tridentine with no strings.
There is simply no good evidence that B-16/Ratzinger EVER tried to submarine the Old Rite or SSPX. Certainly, if he had grave reservations about some position of SSPX (e.g., 'religious freedom') he was bound to say so. But from all I can gather, principally from reading his written works, he is VERY concerned about the BuggerBugnini club's smashing of the altars (lit. and fig.)
He is also not likely to return the Church as a whole to the Old Rite; but I'd bet (if he lives long enough) that you WILL see a "reform of the reform" which brings back some elements of the OR, and likely more Latin. A LOT more Latin.
That's why the Establishment of Modernism hates his guts. Remember that his speech in Regensburg was not solely directed at the heresy of Mohamet.
"Apparently compared to you I live in Paradise. I can find at least 5 "straight-up" NO Masses without driving more than 20 miles 1 way, PLUS a Diocesan-authorized TridRite."
I can't find a single Mass that my 19-year-old daughter will return to a second time. No reverence, platoons of lay eucharist dispensers, horrible musak, heretical homilies...the stench of modernism in the Boise Diocese would knock a buzzard off a corpse wagon. The only two Latin Masses listed are in towns hundreds of miles from Boise -- about as far away from the Bishop as you can get and stay in Idaho -- and I'm not even sure those are still there.
"Remember that SSPX has not been declared to be "leading people astray."
Well, then, it wouldn't seem that there is sufficient reason to get all that het up about it, would it?
"It's interesting, too, that the situation is blatantly ambiguous."
Yes, it does seem odd that a Mass celebrated by an excommunicated priest satisfies one's Sunday obligation.
"I suspect that some of the SSPX muckety-mucks will MAKE them into dealbreakers if the Vat offers the Tridentine with no strings."
With no strings means that they cannot be required to celbrate or concelebrate the N.O., or forbidden to say the Tridentine (except for legitimate disciplinary reasons).
If the Holy Father prepares a proclamation to that effect, I look for an assassination attempt.
"There is simply no good evidence that B-16/Ratzinger EVER tried to submarine the Old Rite or SSPX."
Didn't he support the imposition of the N.O.?
"he is VERY concerned about the BuggerBugnini club's smashing of the altars (lit. and fig.)"
That's comforting.
"He is also not likely to return the Church as a whole to the Old Rite"
I'd be satisfied if he stripped the modernists of their authority to forbid it.
"That's why the Establishment of Modernism hates his guts."
I really hope you're right about that.
"Remember that his speech in Regensburg was not solely directed at the heresy of Mohamet."
I don't see that. The subject was violence in the name of religion.
No, the subject was the conjunction of faith and reason.
B-16 scored those in the West who, following Descartes, have (in effect) begun worship of the god of science rather than the God who Made Science.
"No, the subject was the conjunction of faith and reason."
Oh, that's right. The violence thing wasn't the whole thrust.
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.