U.S. BISHOP SAYS CHURCH CRISIS ABOUT "DISSENT ON SEXUAL MORALITY"

LINCOLN, Neb., July 17, 2002 (LSN.ca) - Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska commented on the crisis in the Catholic church as being all about "dissent" in a recent interview on Eternal Word Television Network. Speaking with Raymond Arroyo of EWTN's "The World Over" program, Bishop Bruskewitz said, "the whole problem quite frankly is precisely dissent" on issues of "sexual morality."

The bishop noted his disappointment with the June bishops' conference dealing with the sexual abuse matter. He noted that the voice of faithful Catholic laity was shut out of the conference. The two people present to represent the laity were "not at all" representative of faithful Catholic laity, he said, pointing out that one of the presenters - Margaret Steinfels - is an open dissenter to church doctrine on sexual matters.

Bishop Bruskewitz registered a complaint with the bishops conference regarding the two speakers. "I have better things to do with my time and money than to listen to Margaret Steinfels" he said.

And one does not blanket-condemn,

There, sir, is your primary error. I "blanket condemned" no-one. Re-read my post #10. I went to a Traditionalist chapel, which up until today I had no reason to believe was anything other than SSPX. (I find out today that the priest may have been SSPV.) Neither the priest nor the faithful were exemplars of Christian Charity, to say the least. I say this to point out that the modernists, upon whom I have spent much time verbally beating, have no monopoly on problems with the Mass. I never said or implied that all, or even many or most SSPX (or SSPV or any other) Traditionalists exhibit such behaviour. You attempt to impute to me some sort of pathological hatred for the SSPX. At that I have to laugh; it's preposterous. I almost, but not quite, agree with you guys.

strange that you hung around a church you had never been to before and engaged the people there in conversation.
ROFL. You're not very curious, are you. I was amazed, shocked, and fascinated. I was trying to find out what, exactly, I had wandered into. The people were quite willing to talk, although the content of their conversation might best be summed up as "If you don't get out of that false novus ordo church, you're gonna go to HELL!!!". Again, I speak the truth. It's becoming increasingly clear that you can't handle the truth. Pity.

And we both know that they never told you that you were going to hell if you attended a NO Mass. It's quite clear that you know nothing. Again, by your own admission, you weren't there. You have absolutely no idea what the man said. When the priest claims from the pulpit that the NO Mass is a false mass, and does not satisfy the "Sunday Obligation", and that attending it is a mortal sin, you don't forget. He was claiming that I (not I personally, he didn't know me from Adam) had committed a mortal sin every Sunday of my life since I had been a small child.

You wrote, in #44 " Chapel which has magically transformed to a Diocese Chapel".
That statement is demonstrated to be erroneous by several sources, which tell us that the DDR acquired the chapel in 1992, 5 years after I visited it, when the parishoners wanted to reunite with Rome. The rest of your posts constitute fact free invective.

Orual, at this point I am convinced that continuing to debate with you is pointless. I have recounted the facts a 15 year old incident. I have nothing further to add, and nothing whatever to subtract from my account. Unless and until you can demonstrate that, in 1987, "Our Lady of the Rosary Chapel" in Chesapeake Virginia, now known since 1992 as "St. Benedict Chapel", had no connection to the Society of Saint Pius X, I have nothing further to say to you on this topic. You, on the other hand, owe me an apology. You have born false witness against me repeatedly. I have no hope of receiving that apology, but I forgive you anyway.

May God abundantly bless you, may His Face shine upon you, and at the end of a long and fruitful life may you receive your eternal reward of the Beatific Vision.

When the priest claims from the pulpit that the NO Mass is a false mass, and does not satisfy the "Sunday Obligation", and that attending it is a mortal sin, you don't forget.

I have heard similar from the pulpit, but with this added: if there is a Traditional Chapel in the area and you attend a NO Mass, you have not satisfied the Sunday obligation, therefore it is a mortal sin if you do not attend Mass on Sunday. Seems reasonable to me if you believe that the Traditional Mass is the true Mass and the NO Mass is some sort of Protestantized, bastardized version that came out of the mess of the Bishops' Council of Vatican II. I suspect that is what the priest would have said, if he were a SSPX priest, but that fact has not been established, as you pointed out.

I went to a Traditionalist chapel, which up until today I had no reason to believe was anything other than SSPX. (I find out today that the priest may have been SSPV.)

Thank you for admitting that.

I almost, but not quite, agree with you guys.

You sure have a very strange way of demonstrating your agreement, however partial.

Forgot to comment on this:

The people were quite willing to talk, although the content of their conversation might best be summed up as "If you don't get out of that false novus ordo church, you're gonna go to HELL!!!". Again, I speak the truth. It's becoming increasingly clear that you can't handle the truth. Pity.

The reason that I find this difficult to believe is because I have been attending an SSPX Chapel for some years now and I have never heard anyone make a stupid, silly, outrageous comment like this. That one, fanatical, ill-informed parishioner might say this is not impossible, but I find it highly unlikely that everyone that you talked to that day voiced this opinion. I have always found the parishioners in my Chapel and in others that I have visited, most welcoming to strangers. In a Chapel I attended in the mid-west recently, the coordinator greeted me as I left the Chapel, asked if I were new to the area, and said that if I had any questions he would be glad to answer them, but suggested that the Pastor was the best source. He added that he hoped he would see me again.

There seems to be a little coonfusion on this thread regarding the Chapel you attended in Chesapeake. If you attended 15 years ago you attended a Mass that would have been celebrated by a SSPX Priest. There was a small congretgation of SSPX people who were having a Priest flown in to say Masses at a Holiday Inn. From what I can remeber they were in constant conflict with the Bishop...and even though Bishop Sullivan is as liberal as you can get, some of these people would have been in conflict with any Bishop, anywhere.

At any rate...after several years of meetingg at the hotel they were able to accrue funds to buy the chapel. Finally Bishop Sullivan agreed to an Indult if they would agree to his authority. That Chapel is now a mission chapel of my home parish, St Gregory the Great in VA Beach, and it's administered by Fr. Damian Abbattachio OSB, who is as fine a Priest you'll find anywhere. Our Parish is administered by the Benedictines from Latrobe but we are fully and completely a part of the Diocese of Richmond. Sadly the quality of the Priests coming from St Vincent's is not what it once was...but they are still far better than most in this diocese.

Dear Orual,

If you read the websites for which I gave URLs, you'll find that ArrogantBustard's story tracks closely with the history of the chapel in question. Thus, the outline of AB's detail is confirmed independently of AB.

That the people at this chapel told him that he would go to Hell if he didn't leave the "Novus Ordo church" is pretty much confirmed by reading one of the websites to which I provided a URL: www.traditio.com. On this site, the Holy Catholic Church is called the "false Novus Ordo church".

That the SSPX would associate with individuals like this kind of weakens their claim to be in communion with the Holy See. If I were a Catholic priest of any sort, I would not consent to say Mass in a church which belonged to a group that called the Holy Catholic Church led by the Bishop of Rome the "false Novus Ordo church".

You said to AB, in part: "Your hatred for the SSPX is pathological and based on one experience which I doubt the veracity of."

At this point to call into question that AB attended this chapel, and to question that it was as he described, is to deny the independent evidence that has been provided to you without any effort on your part. That, indeed, is calumny.

"It is difficult to believe that you could have attended a beautiful, dignified, traditional Mass and that you left filled with such hatred and bile."

It's apparent that AB didn't attend a "beautiful, dignified, traditional Mass...". It's quite apparent that AB attended an illicit Mass (I will give the benefit of the doubt that it was valid) in a church which, at the time, was in schism, and in calling the Holy Catholic Church the "false Novus Ordo church", was verging on the heresy of Martin Luther.

Here is a typical comment from the website of the folks who previously "owned" this parish:

"What you are mistakenly calling the "Church" is the Novus Ordo apparatus. That's not the Church, never was, and never will be. Being with the Church is being with Christ, with His teaching, the Catholic and Apostolic Deposit of Faith coming from Him. Without that, the Novus Ordo can call itself Catholic all it wants, but it isn't."

Here's what they think of the indult:

"Since Protocol 1411 of 1999, there are no exclusively traditional priests in the "indult" (diocesan) framework. All "indult" priests are forced to say the Novus Ordo every now and again to prove their fidelity to the New Order. Therefore, the notion of the "indult," which was flawed from the beginning by coopting it into the Novus Ordo, now can't even put up the pretense of being exclusively traditional. This includes the priests of the "indult" societies as well as the diocesan "indult" priests."

You've been provided with the URLs, if you don't believe me. Go read them yourself.

sitetest

Thank you for your information, I still have not had the opportunity to idependently check the SSPX involvement in the Chapel in question.

I was very disturbed by the tone of Arrogant's first comment. He described all the parishioners he spoke with, and later, the pastor, as "ignorant, self-righteous, and arrogant" (interesting adjective considering his choice of ID). I don't believe that all those parishioners and the priest told him he would go to hell if he attended a NO Mass. As I said in my last reply to Arrogant, it is altogether possible that a misguided, misinformed parishioner or two might say something like this - I'm sure you will agree that fanatical members of all religions are guilty of an excess of zeal.

This incident happened 15 years ago according to Arrogant. He has admitted now that perhaps the priest wasn't an SSPX priest, and could have been a member of a Sedevacantist order. The SSPX is not Sedevacantist,we pray for the Pope frequently and a page on the SSPX website is devoted to him. The SSPX's position has always been that it is not in their province to decide whether or not the Pope is in error, although they (and I) do definitely believe he is. They have consistently maintained that it is up to a succeeding Pope to decide this question.

Arrogant also was exceeding rude and used name-calling instead of engaging in a reasoned discussion. Usually I wouldn't have continued to reply, but I found his story so outrageous that I felt compelled to challenge it. As usually happens when I make the mistake of trying to establish some sort of dialogue in this type of atmosphere, with hindsight I always regret having done it.

Dear Orual,

"Thank you for your information, I still have not had the opportunity to idependently check the SSPX involvement in the Chapel in question."

That the SSPX was involved with this chapel is already independently established. It is also independently established that this chapel, at the time of Bustard's visit, was heterodox, and controlled by a group that views the Holy Catholic Church as a false church. Thus, whether or not you find yourself disturbed with Bustard's first comment, it is nonetheless supported by independent evidence. Do you understand that?

Considering the evidence which exists independent from AB's witness, it is wrong to conclude that he was dealing with one or two misinformed, misguided parishioners. He was at a chapel which views the Mass of Pope Paul VI as invalid, Protestant, evil, and the "structure which supports the Novus Ordo" (as they put it) a false church, not the real church. That was the official belief of the folks who ran this church 15 years ago.

Thus, you are in error to doubt AB's story at this time. Do you understand your error?

Whether or not the particular priest who said the alleged Mass which AB attended was SSPX, it is clear from the history of this church, as reported by its own members that the church at the time of AB's encounter was involved with SSPX priests, to the great discredit of those priests.

I know that the SSPX is not sedevacantist. However, the leaders of the SSPX are excommunicated, and therefore in practical schism with the Holy Catholic Church. Because of the great patience of our Holy Father, the Holy Catholic Church has not taken actions which would justly formalize that schism. I hope and pray that Pope John Paul's patience will be rewarded, and the straying sheep of SSPX will be brought back fully into the fold of the Catholic Church.

Those who knowingly attend SSPX Masses are objectively gravely sinning (though I won't impute actual mortal sin to anyone, not even those who follow schismatics), and it is my understanding that for the most part, SSPX priests do not offer valid absolution in Confession. Thus, it makes me sad for you that you follow these people. You've placed yourself in a difficult place, and you didn't have to.

As to whether or not AB has been rude, that is a separate question from whether he has told the truth. He has, quite obviously, told the truth. You've closed your eyes to that. How sad.

I think that AB could have said what he had to say to you with a little more kindness. I wish that everyone would speak a little more gently around here, and try to deal more charitably with each other.

I note, in your case, even as you complain about AB's rudeness, you continue to treat him rudely by calling him by a name to which he objects. Is this a case of two wrongs make a right? Or are you even more guilty of lack of charity than he?

sitetest

I won't enter into a discussion about your errors and misconceptions about the SSPX because neither of us will ever convince the other of anything. You are wrong, though, about excommunication and schism.

note, in your case, even as you complain about AB's rudeness, you continue to treat him rudely by calling him by a name to which he objects.

If Arrogant objects to being addressed by his own ID, he should change it, but as I said, it fits him so well. By the way, go back and check all the sweet and kind names by which he addressed me. Good that he has you to defend his rudeness, though.

I will check the information you so graciously provided about the history of that Chapel. I don't think it unreasonable that I want to seek corroboration, and that you find that somehow objectionable is very curious.

Thank you for entering into this discussion and your sanctimonious lecture on my behavior and my beliefs has been given the serious consideration that it deserves. You can guess to what degree I value a stranger's evaluation.

Dear Orual,

"I won't enter into a discussion about your errors and misconceptions about the SSPX because neither of us will ever convince the other of anything."

That's good, because I wouldn't want to even try. I'm not competent to discuss these matters. So I just take the word of our Holy Father.

"If Arrogant objects to being addressed by his own ID, he should change it, but as I said, it fits him so well."

As he explained to you, Bustard is the name, Arrogant is the adjective describing Bustard. He's expressed his preference, you've failed to respect it. I guess your theory, then, is that two wrongs, indeed, do make right.

"Good that he has you to defend his rudeness, though."

I haven't defended his rudeness. In fact, in my last post, I expressed that I wish that he, and all of us, would try to speak more kindly to each other. I've spent a lot of time at FR ranting and raving about this topic. Perhaps you've noticed. I suspect that some folks think I'm a bit batty about it. Others may think even worse of me. That's fine. I try to say what I say with charity, when I fail, please forgive me. However, it's something that must be said. Most of the folks here are concerned about the state of our Church, and want to be part of the solution, not the problem. We are part of the problem if we can't even deal with each other here in a charitable manner.

However, you give the appearance that you don't believe that you are held to the same code of behavior to which you wish to hold AB.

"I will check the information you so graciously provided about the history of that Chapel. I don't think it unreasonable that I want to seek corroboration, and that you find that somehow objectionable is very curious."

If you wish to further corroborate, that's fine. But for now, the best-known evidence supports AB, and you are obligated to at least refrain continuing to call into doubt what he has reported, as what he has reported is supported by the best-known evidence, at this point.

"Thank you for entering into this discussion and your sanctimonious lecture on my behavior and my beliefs has been given the serious consideration that it deserves. You can guess to what degree I value a stranger's evaluation."

* chuckle *

You're welcome. I hope that you do give it the serious consideration that it merits, whatever you may think of the messenger. ;-)

sitetest

The SSPX teaches one does not fulfill their Sunday obligation by hearing a normative Mass.

Lefebvre and the others listed in Ecclesia Dei were/are schismatic. Your defense of them is odd.

They specialise in opposing the Pope. They exercise ministry absent Jurisdiction. Their marriages and confessions are invalid.

They have set-up their own Magisterium, their own Canon Law rules and they undertake to issue annulments etc. You may buy their duplicitous lies but few real Catholics do.

You keep citing a source that is from an appeal for reunion. It will NEVER happen while Williamson is alive. Frankly, I think the SSPX is engaged in an enprmous dog and pony shopw and they have NO intention of reuniting unless the Pope accepts THEIR demands.

Despite what they say publicly, they think they are the Remnant and Rome must capitualte to them.

I am curious as to how you discerned that by simply attending a SSPX Mass; or was it something else you wandered upon?

I went to one SSPX Mass celebrated in an old hanger in Lake Worth, Fl. During his sermon, the priest spent the ENTIRE time bitching-out the Pope and attacking the Protestant fake Mass (normative Mass) with its invalid consecration etc etc etc.

The SSPX folks I know are the ones that have contacted me freq. in my area. They are riven with hate and among the most poorly-informed Catholics of any I have met. They read The Remnant, Catholic Family News and The Fatima Crusader as though they were the Gospels themselves and I have yet to meet one who has EVER read any history of the Liturgy that wasn't in an essay form penned by Michael Davies who actually thinks that Martin Luther was the first to desire a vernacular Liturgy. (I guess he hadn't heard of Pope Siricius).

You can read The Angelus online. SSPX Rev Peter Scott recently told his flock the normative mass didnt fulfill the Sunday obligatiion. "Ask Fr. Carl" has the same gibberish in his columns - he no longer writes for them.

Call me cynical but, Bishop Fellay is a smart man and he knows that Rome seeks after lost sheep and in doing so she uses diplomatic language. She doesn't lie but she is very complimentary and avoids polemics. It doesn't take long for the kind words used by Rome to make their way into the public arena where they are used by SSPX devotees and their supporters to "prove" the sspx (and by extension, Lefebvre) were never schismatic and Bishop Fellay appears as more formidable if any internal SSPX power struggle between he and Williamson is occuring.

A cyncial man might look at the entire "rapproachment" from the SSPX side as an exercise in duplicity. They fool many into thinking an actual reunion will occur.I hope they do quit their schism but I agree with sinkspur that few Bishops desire their presence in their Jurisdiction - for many reasons.

I think many Latin Mass lovers - both the FSSP, ICK and the SSPX think "the past is the present" but they are wrong. I suppose there were certain groups about when Pope Siricius changed the Greek Mass into the Latin vernacular and perhaps they were lamenting the death of the Mass of all ages back then and claiming that Pope Hyacinth was rolling over in his grave but I never heard of them splitting off and forming the Societ of Pope Hyacinth in opposition to the living Pope Siricius and codeming him for messing around with the Mass as sudden changes in the Mass are deadly etc etc

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.