D. Rockville Centre – Bp. Murphy makes remarks about SSPX

In The Long Island Catholic, the newspaper of the Diocese of Rockville Centre, his Excellency Most Rev. Bishop William Murphy makes comments about the SSPX/Williamson/Holocaust controversy.

I have written of Bp. Murphy before.  His comments are usually spot on!

However, in his recent offering there are some errors which in justice must be clarified.  I respectfully off this, with my own emphases and comments.

We pick this up in medias res

A few remarks are in order at this point. First the lifting of the automatic excommunication these four bishops incurred by being ordained without the Holy Father’s permission does not mean they are rehabilitated in the Catholic Church and certainly it does not mean that they and their followers are no longer in schism[While we can apply the "duck argument" to the question, the fact is that the Holy See’s reps in this matter say that the SSPX is not in schism.  That would be for the members of the SSPX.  It is much clearer that the followers of the SSPX priests are not formally in schism.] They are in schism  [No, they don’t seem to be in the eyes of the Holy See.] and they remain in schism [again…] until the day comes that they accept the magisterium of the Church. All the teaching of the Second Vatican Council including the texts on religious freedom, on ecumenism and on the Jews, are part of that magisterium. The members of the Society of St. Pius X contest these to this day. To the person who wrote to me (and others) asking if it is now all right for Catholics to attend Mass at St. Michael the Archangel Church in Farmingville, the answer is NO. No Catholic is to attend Mass or fulfill one’s Sunday obligation or seek sacraments from priests of that Church because they remain in schism[Notice that he didn’t say you can’t fulfill your obligation.  He said don’t.  You shouldn’t fulfill your obligation that way.]

 

With respect…. this needs to be clarified.

Also, people in that diocese should listen to their bishop’s will in this matter.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to D. Rockville Centre – Bp. Murphy makes remarks about SSPX

  1. Hmmm….His excellency needs a refresher course in true Vatican II ecumenism because his column is anything but ecumenical!

  2. Todd says:

    Does this mean that because the excommunications with and from the Orthodox were lifted in 1965, we’re no longer in schism with the East?

    I’d be inclined to say that if the SSPX’ers walk, quack, and swim like they’re in schism, then they are. They’ve clearly brought this state of affairs upon themselves, and the leadership is primarily to blame.

  3. IvoDeNorthfield says:

    “if the SSPX’ers walk, quack, and swim like they’re in schism, then they are”

    A good description of many Catholic parishes, universities, publications. Let’s excommunicate all of them!

  4. Bob says:

    Bishop Murphy often errs on the side of modernism. This is why I find your preamble (“usually spot on???”) so puzzling.

    As someone who has been publicly ridiculed by him for attempting to get a suspended priest of questionable background removed from his diocese I do not find his inaccuracies surprising (nor do I believe they are inadvertent).

    From the promotion of Reiki, to every form of ecumania (provided it is not directed at traditionalists) and charismania to the ‘fundamental option’, flawed historical criticism and denial of the miracles of Our Lord taught in the Seminary in Huntington, to his support for the pro abortion Catholic politician Thomas Suozzi… I have never ceased to be amazed at how a man can look so doctrinally sound from his speeches & homilies and be so against sacred Tradition in his actions. He is a clever man indeed… but no friend of tradition.

    Poor Bishop Murphy is about as “spot on” when it comes to actually enforcing orthodoxy as Shawn Hannity is to promoting authentic conservatism. It’s just false advertising Fr. Z.

  5. confused says:

    As someone familiar with the Diocese, it seems to me the only reason someone would go to the SSPX chapel for Mass, is because the WANT to go. The diocese offers a TLM in each of the three vicariates. There is no place on the island where a TLM is more than 20 minutes away, if that. As Fr. Z said, “Also, people in that diocese should listen to their bishop’s will in this matter.” I second that. The bishop is the spiritual father of the diocese and is adivising the diocese not to attend an SSPX chapel, regardless of their status.

    With all due respect, I think the clarification needs to come from the competent authority in Rome.

    MY own question is if they are not in Schism, then what is their status? certainly they do not have proper authority and delegation. they are not permitted to celebrate mass, when they do they do so illicitly. They certainly do not have the authority to hear confessions. If there is a TLM in relative closeness that is offered by the diocese then on OUGHT to go to that Mass instead of the SSPX Mass.

    With regards to the Seminary in Huntington: Nothing even near to heresy is being taught there. Maybe there was YEARS ago, but right now, under the leadership of the Bishop and the rector the diocese of Rockville Centre has an outstanding seminary, with an academic program that matches any other seminary in this country.

    How can a bishop who has widened the TLM in the diocese, made the main celebrant of the TLM for years a Monsignor not be a friend of Tradition? He absolutely is a “friend of tradition.” He is a good and holy bishop, one that we are LUCKY to have,

  6. Mitchell says:

    As someone who lived in this Diocease for 20 years I find his comments a little perplexing as well. Liturgical abuse on Long Island runs rampant and this Bishop (at least by not halting it) is an accomplice by turning the other way. Hand Holding and Clapping introduced for Midnight Mass this year at St. Cyril’s, Deer Park. Surely he should have tighter control. If people are going to the SSPX chapel on LI, it is because the abuses here run wild. Cleaning up the Diocease might hold on to some decent Catholic folk who feel they have no choice because they want the traditional Mass and have to go to the SSPX chapel to worship. Maybe he should introduce a few more Latin Masses (62) into the Diocease. There is after all little activity on the whole of LI in regards to the TLM. I think there are 3 each being an hour driving from the other and 1 or 2 having been indult Masses. Rome has said that in the end, we do fufill our Sunday obligation if we attend if not in opposition to the Pope and Magesterium, etc. (If not I will stand corrected). Maybe we shouldn’t but can. I notice he does not boast about having a variety of TLM’s to choose from on any given Sunday in conveinent places and times to support his wishes of non participation at the SSPX chapel. Along with modernity which is so embraced now in that Diocease, the concept of Strict obedience to a Bishop should be on the agenda as well. Maybe they should earn it and not command it. Bishops in the modern world with the modern Mass. Seems fitting…

  7. Bob says:

    Dear confused. Please read what Cardinal Hoyos stated in 2007.

    I do agree that a bishop ought to be obeyed in all legitimate commands. The question though is simply a question if weather or not Bishop Murphy\’s characterization or the status of SSPX is correct. It is not! Cardinal Hoyos (who has legitimate jurisdiction over the matter of the SSPX’s situation in the Church) has clearly stated otherwise multiple times thus far. No further clarification is needed despite what one might want to hear.

    Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos has repeatedly affirmed that the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is not a case of formal schism on at least five separate occasions in public interviews, as recently as March 17 2007 and over the past 2-1/2 years. Msgr. Camille Perl, long-time secretary for the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), has repeatedly affirmed in personal letters that such Catholics incur no penalty and no sin for merely fulfilling one\’s Sunday obligation at a church or chapel served by the SSPX.

    That being said, I would not attend for the reasons I outlined in the previous comment. Bishop Mutphy has a right to ask that the faithful in his diocese not attend. Those faithful at the same time (according to Rome’s pronouncements from 2007 and even earlier than that) have a right to disagree with their bishop in this matter without penalty of sin.

    As to the seminary you are also incorrect. nOT VERY LONG AGO, I had dinner with one seminarian who informed me that the denial of the miracles is still going on there. They are still “doing theology”. As for the new rector… I know him personally… he is a good man… but I believe his hands are tied with the modernists that still operate there. The lace curtains may have changed… but the inside is still badly in need of cleaning and much prayer.

    I pray for my bishop… and I even love my bishop. But I find the diocese is run more like a corporation (complete with lawyers, spinmeisters and truth splitters) than the Catholic Church. What is needed… he as a father does not seem able to give. Sadly, I do not know why this is.

    When (not IF) the SSPX priests are regularized, I and many other families on Long Island will purchase a case of champaign, introduce ourselves, and join in the celebration. You can be sure we won’t be singing Coombiyah My Lord.

    In the mean time here is a quote from Cardinal Hoyos. I believe this was originally posted on The New Liturgical Movement

    Q: What time do you foresee for the reconciliation with the Fraternity of Saint Pius X?

    A: “There are positive signs; there is an uninterrupted dialogue. A few days ago I wrote a new letter to Msgr Fellay, superior of the Fraternity, as a response to an earlier one of his. In addition to meetings and correspondence, we also communicate with each other on the telephone. I regard as viable the reconciliation with the Fraternity of Saint Pius X because, as we have often said at “Ecclesia Dei”, this is not a real schism but an anomalous situation which arose after the “schismatic action” of Msgr Lefebvre in conferring the episcopate without papal mandate, even against the express will of the Pope. In my heart I have great confidence that the Holy Father will be able to mend the fabric of the Church with the arrival of these brothers to full communion. Some differences will still remain, as we always had in the history of the Church”.

    I hope you are “confused” no longer dear friend.

  8. dcs says:

    confused writes:
    As someone familiar with the Diocese, it seems to me the only reason someone would go to the SSPX chapel for Mass, is because the WANT to go. The diocese offers a TLM in each of the three vicariates. There is no place on the island where a TLM is more than 20 minutes away, if that.

    I am certainly not familiar with the situation in Rockville Centre but it strikes me that people who assist at SSPX chapels aren’t doing so only out of love for the traditional Mass, but also because they want some semblance of parish life (of course, there may be other reasons as well).

  9. JM says:

    So they aren’t in formal schism, but it is difficult to not see the SSPX as being in schism since they are in a position that at least practically speaking pits “alter against alter.” In a sense, isn’t this the definition of schism, when we set up an altar for our own use without permission of the Bishop, who is the representative of our Lord Jesus Christ in the local Church. When we refuse to allow him to be our shepherd and to serve us what else are we doing but rejecting the Church.

    Many SSPX adherents won’t walk into a diocesan church, no matter how traditional it might be and forget ever receiving communion at one. They have been told to by their “leadership,” by those priests and bishops that they have selected to guide them in place of their bishop, who, from my experience, they often speak of with derision. Clement of Rome wrote to the Corinthians to admonish and heal a schism in their local Church because they had removed the legitimate clergy. Really, how is this any different?

  10. Bob says:

    dcs: you have made an excellent point here. If one wishes to belong to a parish where Reiki is taught in the basement, sex ed “under the guise of chastity ed” is taught in the youth groups, pro abortion local Catholic politicians give accolades to monsegniors on the altar during Mass… then one may be inclined to join one of the many parishes on Long Island which will permit these kinds of side shows.

    However, if one wishes to belong to a parish where the salvation of souls is the first order of business… there are few options on Long Island… and they are getting fewer by the day. And that is because the order of the day in DRVC has always been the heresy of the “fundamental option”.

    If one wishes to expose his wife and children to that which is good, true and beautiful then one is very likely to take a close look at SSPX. I have been waiting for years for this reconciliation and I am going to do every novena, fast and prayer that I can in order to make it happen with God’s help.

    I will say this, when the modernists took over my parish on Long Island this summer… I would have crossed the GW bridge and gone to FSSP. As it is, I do not have to do that thanks not to Bishop Murphy but to Benedict XVI.

    I know at least 30 families on Long Island who are exceedingly dissapointed with Bishop Murphy. They find him friendly, affible, and un-trustworthy.

    I once attended one of those big parish gatherings where the aux. bishop asks the folks what they would like to see in a new pastor when the old one retires. The most common answer was ‘Give us a vatican – II priest’. It took me a while to understand what that meant. Then a friend of mine made it clear to me. He whispered ‘It’s all about contraception and sodomy’.
    Some will say that folks get the bishop they desserve. I believe that may be the case here.

    But in the end… it’s not too late for Bishop Murphy or the prople of Long Island. He could repudiate modernism tomorrow morning. He might get seriously attacked by the folks in the chancery if he did… but it would be a heroic act of charity on his part. It would kill him in the end. They can be rutheless. I will continue to pray for hise excellency Bishop William Murphy. I want some day to be able to call him my spiritual father.

  11. Mitchell says:

    Confused,

    Sorry to dipute the post but there is not a TLM within every direction 20 minutes on Long Island. Some of the towns take ten minutes to pass through meaning I would come across a TLM roughly every two towns? Not so. This is a mis-statement of facts that almost seems too intentional…..

  12. Bob says:

    JM: That is double talk. You cannot say “OK… they are not in formal schism” … but they look like they are in formal schism to me so therefore they are in formal schism.

    The one cardinal who has competency to say they are not in formal schism has said so. That’s the end of it. The case for formal schism is closed unless the Holy Father states otherwise.

    Also, any father of any family has the defense of necessity and the permission of Rome’s “Ecclesia Dei” to attend if he thinks it is for the spiritual well being of his family. As I said earlier, I opt not to.

    Finally, I have never heard of an SSPX priest bashing any diocesan official by name ever. I have SSPX friends. That is not what they are about. What I have heard is SSPX priests deriding a particular practice such as Catholic “sex ed”, permitting known (public) homosexuals to have positions of teaching or leadership in a parish, allowing pro abortion politicians access to addressing people at Mass and so on.

    Walk into any DRVC parish and wonder what the priests, pastors and people believe.

    Look… I’m no hardened ideologue. I returned to the Catholic Church through (of all things) the charismatic renewal as many others did. It was only when I began reading things that were written at the Council or before the council that I began to realize that the council has never been implemented in DRVC. The “Spirit of The council” is what has attention in Rockville Center. And as we all know, those are two very different things.

  13. Bob K. says:

    Back stabbing their own. Because they are traditional. The bishops seem to have a different opinion on the SSPX then the Holy See. To me this is deliberate!.

  14. Bob says:

    Yes Bob K. The only time it’s OK to be un-ecumenical is when it has to do with lovers of sacred tradition. Why? Because bishops know that if the people see the beauty, truth, and order of sacred tradition… then the people might accidentally touch the third rail of ecclesial politics. That third rail consists of contraception, homosexuality, working moms, Catholic “chastity – ed”, and all the other things thate brought the Church and the family right to the brink of extinction in Europe. This self destructiveness of the modernist in the Church is analogous to the destructiveness of the modern Marxist in modern day government.

  15. Jasna Gorak says:

    You’d think from reading the Bishop’s statement that we were still in the ’70’s, and Paul VI was still calling the shots.

    We’re not in the ’70’s anymore, Bishop Murphy, and you’re not Cardinal Benelli. We do not have to make an act of obedience and profession to the “Conciliar” Church, to use Cardinal Benelli’s term. We now have options and we intend to exercise them by going to Mass in the extraordinary form said by priests who are orthodox and in communion with the Church.

    What we will not accept is the things that are so prevalent in your diocese, Bishop Murphy, like banal liturgies, I’m OK, you’re OK sermons, K-12 Catholic sex ed in your schools, denial of the historicity of scripture, and priests like Msgr. Jim Vlaun who teach Catholics the “deep Christian meaning” of rock music.

    So, we’ll stay in communion with you, and we won’t go to SSPX until they’re fully regularized, but we’ll have nothing to do with the status quo, ecumenical banality in your diocese where everyone’s sensibilities are carefully catered to and respected, except conservative and traditional-minded Catholics who are trying to do the heroic feat of living in obedience to you and at the same time attempting to preserve their faith.

  16. Paul says:

    For the 25th anniversary of the founding of St Michael the Archangel Church in Farmingville, Long Island, (Rockville Centre Diocese), Bishop William was present for this occasion and offered Mass for the faithul. He also delivered a sermon which can be accessed on Catholic Radio Long Island. His Excellency made several important points. Afterwards, we had a grand dinner-buffet at the local fire department. The bishop was gracious & took delight in the numerous children that the families of St Michael are producing.

    Please listen carefully to his sermon. Thank you.

    http://voiceofcatholicradio.com/081123,bshp_williamson,25th_anniversary_of_st_michaels_final,40_min.mp3

  17. Paul says:

    I should add that the date of the 25th Anniversary
    of St Michael’s founding was November 1, 2008.

  18. The fact that SSPX is not formally in schism is not the real issue when it comes to attending their Masses. The issue is that their bishops and priests have their faculties suspended a divnis, and while the sacraments are valid, they remain illicit. In the case that “confused” has set forth, there is a TLM available to all in the diocese, and even if there weren’t, that alone is not sufficient reason to attend an SSPX Mass instead of a Mass with valid and licit sacraments. Given the circumstances, it is difficult to see why anyone would attend an SSPX Mass, especially in that diocese, with any other intention than schism.

  19. semi-trado says:

    OK, Ok. Why is it that attacking a Bishop of the Church oft takes on a sports-like atmosphere here? Lets take a step back, or up perhaps. From a higher vantage point, what is Bishop Murphy really saying? I read it as: It’s a concern for me that people think, well intentioned as they are, that the lifting of the xcoms means everythings fine and well with SSPX on LI and that the doors are open. Certainly people make leaps of faith and assume more has taken place than indeed any reader of these pages knows is the case (due to the execllent global reporting).

    Isn’t it possible our Bishop is protecting his flock? Some might even say he’s using such strong terms as “schism” (3x) to scare people away – for the time being. Its’ obvious to me that he’s not getting into the subtlties of this in the confines of the LI Catholic article (though it wouldnt be a bad place to do so.) I personally think using the term schism after how the Holy See has been positioning this discussion ove rthe past 3 yrs is to say the least – unfortunate.

    I do, however, agree with Bob when he says that VII has not been implemented in DRVC. It hasn’t and I dare say won’t be done well for some time. There are times and places where the light shines, but this is one of the most very liberal dioceses in the country and this ship is not turning too swiftly, even with a man at the helm who I believe understands the problem. And the seminary is a fine example.

    Having said that, it’s no wonder why the motu propio hasn’t been better received and implemented. It’s over 40 yrs since VII and look where we are. The MP SP will have been out 2 yrs in July and the state of affairs is miserable. Pastors are fighting it. I know from experience. The problem is not logical, theological – it’s emotional. I’ve heard responses like “I’m not comfortable.”

    Traditionally minded people are a growing segment on LI (as in many places) and are pushing boundaries that have customarily been off limits. TLM’s are a representation of this phenomena when understood correctly. The SSPX then is the poster-boy for pushing the buttons of the church leadership. I’m not surprised in the least that “it” or “they” push back from time to time. But I don’t see the push back aimed primarily at the Trads – it’s aimed at the semi-trads, those who want to do the right thing, love or are looking to love the TLM and yet stay in union and faithful to Rome and the local pastor. But this is proving harder and harder, especially in this fast=paced world.

    Why is it that since Sept 07 there have not been any TLMs added to parishes in this Diocese (RVC)? Please do not think it’s due to lack of requests. pastors are using extreme measures to keep a lid on this, intimidating the lay faithful as well as ordained, Roman Catholc priests. It’s happening. In the RVC Diocese there’s about 1.5 million people, 133 parishes and 4 Sunday TLMs. Oh, and a coetus is 3 people right? Do the math.

  20. David Kastel says:

    The bishop demands “full respect for the Jewish faith”

    He should concern himself with whether his sheep have full respect for the Catholic Faith.

  21. JM says:

    Bob,

    “JM: That is double talk. You cannot say “OK… they are not in formal schism” … but they look like they are in formal schism to me so therefore they are in formal schism.”

    Try reading what I wrote. I didn’t say they were in formal schism, no formal schism has been declared, but since they aren’t really in communion either, it really does smell like schism even if it isn’t officially declared. If someone refuses to have anything to do with their local Church, and there are lots of people hanging out in SSPX chapels who fit that description, then it is difficult to not view them as being in schism.

    “Finally, I have never heard of an SSPX priest bashing any diocesan official by name ever. I have SSPX friends. That is not what they are about.”

    And I have heard these things in ten different parishes across the US and Canada, three of which I was registered with and attended because they were where I lived, seven of which I attended while on trips. Like any good SSPXer I drove out of my way to get to some of them, even bypassing FSSP, ICK, and indult parishes that were much closer. I’ve known several families who drive at least an hour out of their way to get to an SSPX parish even though there is a traditional parish much closer, with a wonderful traditional priest and traditional community. [The SSPX strongly advises against attended licit traditional Masses since they have compromised with the modernist. Go read their website.] I’ve heard many people at SSPX parishes speaking derisively popes, their local bishops and other bishops, and priests, and all those poor modern “Novus Ordo” Catholics. I have heard them talk of the scandal of someone having fallen away and gone to a FSSP or ICK parish and how they’ll just end up becoming Novus Ordo. Many SSPX adherents will not donate money to non-SSPX Catholic parishes, orders, groups, etc and neither would I for a long time. This isn’t because these groups supported anything actually anti-Catholic, but simply because they aren’t SSPX, and thus are modernist and should not be supported.

    I know there are lay Catholics who are just trying to survive by hiding in SSPX chapels who would never say anything derogatory about their bishops or the pope because I’ve have met them too. They really aren’t “part” of the SSPX. And yes, I know that only clergy are part of the SSPX, but a lot of associated laity are for all practical purposes part of the SSPX.

    A lot of the SSPX priests I met were actually reasonable, sane men and will make wonderful priests in the Church when full communion is achieved. There are a few crazies, though they seem to be older for the most part.

    These are my observations, gleaned from my experiences attending SSPX chapels over years. [I don’t attend their chapels now.] Maybe the subset of SSPX adherents I ran into included a larger percentage of those who seem to have a “schismatic mentality” than actually exists in the SSPX population, but the sample set I have accumulated allows me to generalize somewhat and the trend isn’t looking good, but then again I could be wrong.

  22. Gleb says:

    Dear Confused– there is a place on the island where the TLM is more than 20 mins away. It is…Rockville Centre. That should tell you something. The closest TLM to the city of Rockville Centre is in the diocese of Brooklyn. There are at odd times in far flung locations. Rockville Centre has deep problems built over 20 years. They’re not all Bp. Murphy’s fault. But it is one of the half dozen dioceses in the country I would give serious consideration to taking my family to the SSPX church. I’m not sure how probable it is to trust a family’s faith to the diocesan authorities in Rockville Centre and manage to retain the faith.

  23. Bob says:

    JM: You are attempting to state that though no formal schism has been declared (even though bishop Murphy has just erroneously attempted to declared it) that it seems to you a de facto schism.

    But you are forgetting that there are extremists on both sides here (and poor bishop Murphy happnes to be one of them). What of the de facto schisms going on inside the parishes of the diocese of Rockville Centre? What are good mothers and fathers to do when the options on Long Island grow smaller and smaller? I never hear bishop Murphy publicly correct the nuns in his diocese who are flaming modernists. No… instead he gives them papal awards. He has two sets of rules: One for orthodox Catholics and one for modernists.

    There is no moral obligation to go to a ‘traditional parish’ (the meaning of that term ‘traditional’ becomes stranger by the day in DRVC) if the prefect for Ecclesia Dei has stated publicly and repeatedly that one can meet their Sunday obligation by attending an SSPX parish. Cardinal Hoyos did not qualify that with any geographical supposition. You are adding that supposition… not Cardinal Hoyos.

    My teenagers have told me they would rather take their chances in an SSPX parish some day if necessary then put up with altar girls, feminist theology, tacit approval of homosexuality from the clergy, banal liturgy and semi naked parishioners in the summer time.

    Since Catholic sex ed, many of us young and growing families stopped sending our money to the diocese a long time ago. I would rather send my 10% (yes that’s right, 10%) to EWTN, FSSP, or some of the more orthodox Dominicans. Morally I am obligated to not let a single dollar of my weekly tithe go to Catholic sex ed, ecumania junkets for bishop Murphy or any of the other novelties that Rockville Centre would like me to fund. Understand as I have stated before, I do not go to SSPX, have never gone to SSPX but I might some day if they are regularized.

    When Cardinal Hoyos or Benedict XVI tells me that I can not go to an SSPX chapel, then I will recant the fact that it is permissible to do so. But there is more likelihood of a snowball in… well you get my point.

    Bishop Murphy lost all credibility for us families and our children when he embraced guys like Tom Suozzi and some of the modernist monsignors that were McGann’s fair haired boys. I would obey him in all legitimate commands as canon law prescribes. This is not a legitimate command however.

    So while many Catholic families are not accepting the extreme attitudes of the older hard liner SSPXers… at the same time, these same families lost faith in bishop Murphy and his type a long time ago. And the more closely they look at his record before he came to Long Island… the more certain they are of their conclusions. Talk about using the “duck analogy”.

    I have now had a chance to speak to many of the families about his pronouncement and none of the moms or dads that I spoke to see his comments as anything more than an emotional outburst that he failed to run by his own canonist.

    I have heard DRVC parish priests comment at the shrinking number of orthodox parishes and say “good… let’s hope they leave and go to SSPX so we can be rid of these crazies”. We are called crazies because we:

    1.) Are young families that love the old Mass and go to confession at least monthly,

    2.) Condemn (along with several excellent popes) Catholic sex ed which your Sunday collection helps support

    3.) Accept the historical nature (as do several popes and excellent magisterial documents) of Sacred Scripture as serious and a binding obligation,

    4.) Accept Humanae Vitae not only in it’s “spirit” but in it’s application… meaning we are fully obedient to it.

    5.) Reject all excuses for forms of homosexuality both in our parishes and in society as a whole,

    6.) See the false ecumenism for what it is and believe that all roads lead to Rome,

    7.) Do not see Vatican – II as some kind of “super dogmatic council”, but rather as just one of 21 councils that should be taken in full continuity with the other previous 20 or 21 councils (depending upon how you count them).

    8.) Reject “charismania” as an answer to the Church’s present demographic decline and liturgical banality.

    9.) Take the oath against modernism as a serious and binding thing.

    10.) Would not trust a diocesan official to guide the religious education of our kids any more then we would trust Karl Marx to teach them history.

    In short, we represent the hermeneutic of continuity as opposed to the rupture that bishops McGann and Murphy have presided over for the last 40 or more years.

    Look dear brother Catholic (I mean that… it’s not sarcasm): Gone are the days when “conservative Catholics” (I hate that term because it means nothing now) are going to simply pray, pay and obey. We are not afraid of some bishop’s calumnious and erroneous accusations, we are not afraid of some fringe SSPXer, we are not afraid of upsetting even our own friends, families or employers about being Catholic. Many of us network very closely, we read magisterial documents (and blogs such as this one), we pay close attention to what a priest says at the altar and will lovingly correct him if he teaches some form of baloney.

    This is the clarity that the information age and our reigning pontiff have brought us. When one can go to Vatican.va (thank you dear JP-II for creating that great resource) and read a document for ones self it is difficult for the diocesan apparatchiks to pull the wool over they eyes of dad. We are not Children of Vatican II, we are Children of the Church and of Jesus Christ who is Lord of all history.

    We accept all of the councils in the light of sacred tradition, not in the “spirit of a single council” We know very well where the line sometimes has to be drawn between obedience to one’s ordinary and sensus fidelium. If a bishop teaches something like Virtus, safe touch or any of the other psychobabble programs designed to keep the lawyers away which is against sensus fidelium, we’re not obliged to pay any attention to it. This pronouncement falls clearly into the same category.

    The fact is that the SSPXers need us and we need them. No baloney from the local chancery is going to intimidate us into believing otherwise. We are with Peter. And if Peter tells us we can befriend our SSPX brethren then we will do it. In fact… I think I’m going to buy that case of champagne and go to St. Michaels as soon as possible now even before they are regularized… because we ought to pray together that (despite bishop Murphy) the full reconciliation can be completed within the next year.

  24. Bob says:

    Here is an excellent translation of Bishop Murphy’s rant that I just discovered. Some bold Long Islander has had the good sense to dissect the whole message and show the duplicity of it at the same time.

    http://modernpriest.blogspot.com/

  25. JamesDaultry says:

    Gleb said above, “There is a place on the island where the TLM is more than 20 mins away. It is…Rockville Centre. That should tell you something. The closest TLM to the city of Rockville Centre is in the diocese of Brooklyn. There are at odd times in far flung locations. Rockville Centre has deep problems built over 20 years. They’re not all Bp. Murphy’s fault. But it is one of the half dozen dioceses in the country I would give serious consideration to taking my family to the SSPX church. I’m not sure how probable it is to trust a family’s faith to the diocesan authorities in Rockville Centre and manage to retain the faith.”

    Just to let you know, Gleb, there are, in fact, four parishes in the Rockville Centre Diocese which offer the TLM: Our Lady of Lourdes in Massapequa Park, St. Ladislaus in Uniondale, St. Matthew’s in Dix Hills, and Sacred Heart in Cutchogue.

    As you say, the problems in the Rockville Centre diocese are very deep, but they actually extend back to the ’70’s, so they are obviously not all Bp. Murphy’s doing. In all fairness, he deserves credit for initiating a much-needed reform of the seminary system, he has encouraged the return of Eucharistic adoration and frequent confession, and has been fairly friendly to the Latin Mass community here.

    However, in true “Conciliar” fashion, he reaches out a tentative hand to every side, though he bends over backwards to please the Jews, for whom he has a special affection.

  26. JM says:

    Bob,
    There is really no point in replying to your replies since since you aren’t really addressing the contents of my posts. Slow down, think some instead of being reactionary. I will no longer be posting on this particular subject.

  27. Mitch says:

    “One in Cutchogue”, that serves the entire island east of Suffolk County. A few hundred thousand people. And that is an old indult Mass. A town with a small population and community that is isolated and most LI’ers have no idea where it is..It is in the boondocks. Growing up on LI through the liturgical mess of the 70’s and 80’s was rough. My entire family fell away from the Church. Good Catholics and people who could not stand the banality from parish to parish. I am fortunate to have a TLM in NYC that I can go to, but Mom is still looking out on LI for something that resembled her Mass from her youth. At almost 60 she has had it and is going to Manhattan next year for Christmas Mass. A 2 hour drive to find what she says must be a “decent” Mass. That is what the DRVC has to offer.

  28. JamesDaultry says:

    Here’s my take on Bishop Bill “The Hammer” Murphy:

    A convinced conciliarist and skilled Boston politician, Bishop Murphy still believes that by giving all sides a little something he can achieve that elusive ‘springtime’ that led Cardinal Stafford to exclaim joyfully to Pope John Paul II at the World Youth Day 2000 in Rome, “Holy Father, may I present to you the children of Vatican II?”

    I’m afraid poor Bishop Murphy is destined to die with the same puzzled and befuddled broken heart of both Bugnini and Pope Paul VI who just couldn’t understand what went wrong with the well-meaning and carefully planned reform.

    Here’s why Bishop Bill Murphy is still living in the Conciliar la-la land: he has time to go dialogue for one week with Cardinal Kasper and the Jews in South America, but will not give Catholic homeschooling mothers even a half-hour of his time so they can discuss their concerns about his failing Catholic schools.

    He was sent a petition by 38 homeschooling families begging him to bring a FSSP priest to the diocese before one of the last orthodox pastors retired. He not only denied the petition, but instead sent the parish whose pastor had retired, a gay-friendly, pro-contraception, trendy, theological illiterate who promptly cut the Mass and Confession schedule by almost 50%.

    So, he can dialogue with the Jews all he wants but his pastoral plan will one day end up on the conciliar “ash heap of history,” to quote Lady Thatcher.

  29. Paul says:

    Within the showdow of St Michael the Archangel Church in Farmingville, Long Island, (Rockville Centre Diocese), there are at
    least three new Protestant Evangelical churches:

    1) at the intersection of Horseblock Road & Rt 112
    2) in Coram on Route 25
    3) a charismatic church just south of LIE & N.Ocean Avenue

    Why do I make note of this? Because these above mentioned churches are filled to the rafters with ex-catholics; Catholics who have fallen away from the Holy Faith. The churches mentioned above are beautifully built with good architectural design which make them attractive to former Catholics.
    Catholics here have lost their Catholic identity and those who attend the Novus Ordo will slowly loose their faith.
    Please listen carefully to the sermon given by Bishop Williamson by accessing the above link I provided above.
    Thank you.

  30. JamesDaultry says:

    Paul,

    Just wanted to let you know I listened to about half of Bishop W’s talk that you linked to here. Bishop W. started off in grand fashion with the theme that the Church has been in crisis because of a division between truth and authority. He went along splendidly for a while, but got bogged down pretty quickly in that gray area between truth and authority which the SSPX has valiantly tried to maintain for many years.

    I must give the SSPX much credit for resisting the pull towards sede-vacantism and maintaining their respect and belief in the authority of the Pope, but their justification for their state of limbo stretches pretty thin as this speech demonstrates. Even Bp. Williamson sounded a little confused for a minute or two there.

    It was refreshing to hear the man, though, I must confess. I know many of his conclusions are way over the top and downright offensive, but he is a splendid rhetorician, a decent man and a kindly and zealous bishop, so I wish him well, and hope he can find it within his heart to bring this crisis to a peaceful resolution which will allow the fractured factions within the traditionalist movement unite together. It is an ironic thing that so much depends upon this man, and I am hoping he will rise to the occasion and “save the day” with a further retraction and apology of some sort.

  31. Paul says:

    Congressman Ackerman talking with Bishop William Murphy of the Archdiocese of Rockville Centre at the annual Long Island Anti-Defamation League (ADL) gala.

    http://www.house.gov/ackerman/pages/archdiocese.htm

  32. Bob says:

    JM: I get your point about some of the excesses you have encountered in SSPX. I’m not ignoring your points (sorry if I seemed to be). I’m simply saying that the excesses of the modernists who are in full communion never raise any eyebrows among those who are quick to criticize SSPX folks. When the shoe is on the other foot it’s always a different set of rules. Try talking to +Murphy about some priest who essentially teaches that Humanae Vitae ‘has no real binding force as a teaching document’. Or try talking to +Murphy about a homosexual pastor and his lover terminating you from your full time job in a parish rectory (with +Murphy’s approval) because you found child pornography on the pastors computer under the pastors user name (as happened to a close friend of mine) and dutifully reported it according to diocesan guidelines.

    I can tell you from experience that at best, you will be ignored and at worst you will be in legal trouble with DRVC’s high priced lawyers.

    Look, there are nuts everywhere. The point is that one can be a nut and teach in Huntington or pastor a parish and that raises no eyebrows. However if one is a nut and also orthodox… well then there is a different standard of punishment for that.

    Of course I do not accept this nonsense that a Novus Ordo is a sacrilege or any of that idiocy. This is precisely why they must reconciled. It’s all part of the psychology of division caused by the last 40+ years in DRVC.

    The truth though is that when +Williamson states that “Truth & Authority have been divided…” he is right. A man can be right about one thing and wrong about others. I think that there are other things that Williamson is also wrong about (such as the ridiculous statement he once made about women not being doctors of the Church).

    SSPX folks make a case for the ‘necessity defense’ which is in both the old and new canon law.

    Instead of pouring cold water on the act of reconciliation as +Murphy has predictably done… one would think that to opposite, an act of kindness on his part, would go a long way.

    Finally JM, it is a telling fact that nowhere in +Murphy’s incorrect account of the status of SSPX does he mention the availability and location of the TLM’s offered elsewhere in DRVC.

    I will end with this note of hope. +Murphy could do allot by extending an olive branch to the many people that he has hurt in his diocese. For him to do this, he would have to go against the advice of his New York attorneys and his marketing spin meisters. He could write to the folks at SSPX and meet with them as he often does with members of other religions if he wishes to show his true ecumenical spirit. He could reach out to parishioners and orthodox priests in the diocese (I think there are about 4 or 5 of them) and assist them in their struggle against modernism. It would take great courage and humility, but he cold do it. He would be vehemently criticized by people in his own chancery were he to do these things… but it would end up saving many souls.

    I will be praying for +Murphy. But at the same time I will be praying for SSPX. I say this because the day may come when all the young families will be in SSPX and DRVC will be closing parishes left & right. When that time comes… I hope they are regularized or I will have to cross the GW Bridge in order to belong to a parish.

  33. Charivari Rob says:

    Father Z. – “I have written of Bp. Murphy before. His comments are usually spot on!”

    I’ve had a little experience with him. He examined the parish Confirmation class I co-taught one year up here in Boston, cleaving fairly cleanly to the heart of the Sacrament (and their preparedness) with the young’uns. I witnessed some of the immediate effect of instructions he issued (soon after moving to LI) ‘tightening up’ the liturgical standards of funeral Masses. I read the accounts here of his comments on restoring the proper place (physical and attitudinal) of the Blessed Sacrament and the Tabernacle inside the church.

    Based on those observations, I’d probably agree with “usually spot on”. Very traditional and orthodox.

    On the other hand, however, there are some actions and decisions of his regarding which I’ve heard of (or experienced) some doubt (to put it kindly) as to their being “spot on”. Mostly with those I’ve only read accounts of them (some here, some elsewhere), rather than having direct experience.

  34. Chris Brennan says:

    For a bishop to have authority over his flock, he must hold the Catholic faith in its entirety. I believe it was Pope Pius XII who taught us that if one dissents from the faith on one point, he rejects the faith entirely. One cannot be 90% Catholic. One who does not have the Catholic faith cannot possibly hold authority over those who do. Pope Saint Pius X called modernism the “synthesis of all heresies”. If Bishop Murphy truly is a modernist, as some on Long Island have stated, then he is not a bishop, because he is not a Catholic.

    A bishop must accept without reservation ALL of the points of doctrine solemly taught by Holy Mother Church. If, for example, he believes that men evolved from apes, or that the Old Covenant is still valid, or that one can be saved through other religions, then he dissents from solemly defined Catholic dogma, and he no longer holds the Catholic faith.

    Since I left DRVC before +Murphy arrived, I cannot say whether he still holds the Catholic faith in its entirety. From what I’ve read from those who are still there, it doesn’t look very good. He appears to be a run-of-the-mill American bishop. That’s not very promising.

    All of this nit picking about whether or not one may assist at an SSPX Mass is a pointless waste of time. A layman who assists at their Masses has, at most, authority only over his own family. But a guy who puports to have authority over a million souls, but doesn’t have the Catholic faith, is a walking disaster. The people who live in DRVC urgently need to consider whether or not Bishop Murphy is truly a Catholic. Father Zuhlsdorf, or however you spell his name, is not qualified to make that determination because he does not live in that diocese. Now if you have a question regarding Windows vs. Apple, you might want to address it to him.

  35. Gleb says:

    JamesDaultry- note I was discussing the city of Rockville Centre, not the diocese. There is no authorized TLM in the city of Rockville Centre, which is the seat of the diocese. I realize that since S.P. curtailed the Bishop’s ability to suppress the E.F., it has grown beyond the insulting single Mass authorized in a retired priest’s residence. It remains that the closest (by driving time) traditional Mass to the Bp. Murphy’s cathedra is not even in his diocese, but is in the diocese of Brooklyn.

  36. Charivari Rob says:

    For those who didn’t know (and probably didn’t care), events in the next diocese (Brooklyn) being closer to the seat of Rockville Centre diocese that similar events in that diocese would be due in part to geography – the diocese is about 105 miles long while the seat is only 7 or 8 miles from one end of it.

    Gleb,

    I couldn’t find a Brooklyn listing as close to Rockville Centre as Our Lady of Lourdes is (Massapequa Park, about 10-11 miles). Which Brooklyn Mass did you find? I know traffic on the Island isn’t great, but as long as it isn’t Friday night or Saturday morning on a summer weekend, is it really more than 20 minutes on the Sunrise Highway?

    JamesDaultry,

    Do St. Ladislaus and St. Matthew still offer the Latin Mass? Latin Mass Network has both of them listed, but the most current websites/summaries for these parishes that I found through drvc.org do not mention Latin Masses.