Rorate Caeli

As if Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae didn't exist

William J. Wright was the parish priest of Liverpool, Australia when he was appointed bishop of the Australian diocese of Maitland-Newcastle by Pope Benedict XVI on April 4, 2011. He was subsequently consecrated on June 15, 2011. He was appointed to succeed the very liberal Bishop Michael Malone, who was only 71 when his 'resignation' was accepted by the Pope.

Around the time of his appointment, he was embroiled in controversy over his refusal to honor the request of 37 of his parishioners for the Traditional Latin Mass to be celebrated in their parish. Unfortunately, it seems that Bishop Wright has now extended his refusal to obey Summorum Pontificum to his entire diocese. See the letter below.

In summary: it 'forbids' the regular celebration of the TLM on a Sunday, and 'permits' only a weekly weekday TLM at most. This, in a diocese that currently has no regular TLM; for 4 years, there was a monthly weekday Mass, and for 18 months or so until recently, there was an irregularly-scheduled Sunday Mass (perhaps 6-8 times a year). Rorate has been informed that the priests who offered these Masses were from outside the diocese, and that their circumstances no longer allow them to assist.

Maitland-Newcastle is, of course, far from being the only diocese where the bishop has actively blocked the application of Summorum Pontificum. Paix Liturgique's latest English newsletter tells the story of another such diocese: Viviers in France, where even the monthly Saturday hybrid TLM (with readings according to the Paul VI lectionary and done in French) promised a year ago by the bishop of the diocese has not yet materialized.


Ferraiuolo said...

Say at least one Ave Maria for this poor Bishop.

S. Petersen said...

This letter is written in the same blithe, invincible arrogance as one I received on a related matter (kneeling to receive the host) in the Diocese of Grand Rapids. How can so privileged a person as a Bishop of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church so insulate himself from the truth carried on those currents of thought borne by the Holy Spirit?

Tom Esteban said...

What "Indult" is he talking about? The instructions from His Holiness in Summorum and from Ecclesia Dei in Universae are clear.

Universae Ecclesiae:
14. It is the task of the Diocesan Bishop to undertake all necessary measures to ensure respect for the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite, according to the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.


My favourite part of the letter was the Bishop, in the first paragraph, essentially giving away his faulty reasoning: "I don't like the Latin Mass, so you can't have it."

Pope St.Pius X, ora pro nobis!

New Catholic said...

The Benedictine crop of Bishops...


Anonymous said...

Another one of pope benedict's beautiful gifts to the Church. Vatican II is the gift that just keeps on giving

Archdeacon Grantley said...

I suppose one could blame Pope Benedict for what is really a dreadful appointment to a much-suffering diocese. But to be fair, let the blame be laid at the feet of the King-maker who arranged for the appointment of Father Wright:

none other than Cardinal Pell the Great.

Thank you, Your Eminence.

Et Expecto said...

Summorum Pontificum does, of course, provide for the laity to appeal to Ecclesia Dei in Rome in circumstances like this. It is well worth writing a letter to the Ecclesia Dei Commission. They are on the ball and do not hesitate to take action. I speak from experience.

Anonymous said...

In my youth in 1950s Catholic grade school I was taught that no one, not even the pope, could demand obedience to something that was evil or against the Faith. Authority is for good ends not evil ones. So what good end does this bishop propose is the reason for his action?

When you get right down to it, folks, this is the reason why many refuse to obey what they perceive to be illicit orders from local bishops. God is good, right? He cannot do evil Himself for He is All-Good but can permit evil because he has given man free will and because there is an Evil One in the world tempting man at every turn. Does this mean that God countenances evil by his bishops? I don't think so. This doesn't mean, of course, that we can willy-nilly refuse submission to local bishops but it means that we are only required to submit to what is right and good, not wrong and evil. It seems that these days we are more often required to make decisions that years ago were not even thought of. Is this the era of diabolical disorientations? Could be.


Kitchener Waterloo Traditional Catholic said...

Our Holy Father, the heir to St. Peter and Christ's representative on Earth has given us means to defend the Usus Antiquior. The faithful need to petition Ecclesia Dei. Follow the chain of command; this bishop (and all) have a boss.

Anonymous said...

When you set up a structure in an institution where an appointee serves for life as he now heads a local Church, the members only option is to wait for the appointee to die or retire. When I drive down an avenue and see Protestant churches, I have no interest in what occurs in them. As a result I have no interest in what occurs in a diocese in Australia where I have never been.

Father Shelton said...

One of the most consistent and reasonable charges against bishops concerning the reassignment of know pervert-priests has been the charge that they do not really listen to the cries of the victims. Reading a letter like this one reveals a broader clericalism that is deaf to any cries of the sheep, no matter the concern.

John Nolan said...

"Memories of the Latin language"? I would expect any bishop to have a reasonable familiarity with liturgical Latin before he is even considered for appointment.

Henry said...

Seriously, how can does a man get to be appointed a bishop who cannot even understand what the word "indult" means?

Anonymous said...

THis is the prinicpal reason why words like "should" "may" "requested" are useless and can be ignored. Papal documentation needs to state things clearly with words like "will" "must" and "absolute". The longer Bishops continue to act like this they will be hated by a great many people who will not pray for them. They are best forgotten to rot.

Anonymous said...

It is time to write Ecclesia Dei! They have followed all the necessary steps.

HOWEVER: The glaring problem is also that it appears that no one in their diocese is familiar with the Mass of the Ages. I WOULD BET that there are many priests who would have learned it happily IF SEMINARIES would teach it.
IF THE HOLY SEE WOULD LIKE TO SEE BISHOPS STOP BLOCKING "SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM," THEY SHOULD SIMPLY MANDATE THAT THE SEMINARIES TEACH THE TRADITIONAL FORM OF THE MASS! Then the priests themselves would fight this battle, and it would, more often than not, never make it to the Holy See.

Yes, Sunday Mass is an expression of the unity of the Church. However, the Holy Father himself has already indicated that the TLM is in NO WAY A CAUSE OR SIGN OF DISUNITY! This is a flawed understanding of the unity of the Church and the purpose of the Liturgy. On this line of thinking, having more than one Mass is unacceptable, for some groups clearly prefer early Mass, while some prefer mid-morning Mass. The Holy Father teaches the Traditional Form is for all people, not just a group. Therefore, even if his argument were correct (which it is not), it would still fail on the false premise that the TLM is a Mass just for a special group.

May God be merciful to this bishop and give him the grace to respond humbly and to learn from his mistakes. It is so easy for us weak and fallen creatures to exalt our will and preferences against the mind of the Church (don't read any other motives into this statement than its immediate context). IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY, PRAY FOR OUR BISHOPS.

Melchior Cano said...

"But to be fair, let the blame be laid at the feet of the King-maker who arranged for the appointment of Father Wright:

none other than Cardinal Pell the Great."

All due respect, Archdeacon, but this is thin.

This is nothing more than a rehashed version of the great lie that we traditionalists objected to for the 25 years of the late pope's reign. The truth is otherwise: The buck must stop somewhere, and that somewhere has to be the Holy Father.

If the first handful of Benedictine bishops appointed were unknown to the Holy Father, then that's fine, we can give him a pass. But after that first crop, this is clearly his decision. I'm not saying he loves having bishops like this, but he's at least not willing to oppose them or the advisors who promote these men.

Imagine if you were a CEO and couldn't believe all the middle-managers who were hired. Imagine that they did a poor job and that you really didn't want them in the company. At a certain point wouldn't you at least switch advisors?

I love our Holy Father deeply but we do no favors to ourselves by excusing/praising everything Pope Benedict XVI does, even while we vilified those same things (and rightly) during the reign of the late Pope John Paul II.

As the historical Cano said:
"Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very people who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See – they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations."

It bears repeating.

Sixupman said...

Were not the local ordinaries the undoing of Msgr. Lefebvre's work and are they not still at the heart of the problem?

Anonymous said...

These kinds of men are increasingly being appointed. The Roman standard is "Business as usual." Even the great Cardinal Burke will tell you that no priest will be appointed bishop without his own bishops approval. That pretty much locks in liberal bishops for the future. A particular diocese might get a "conservative" from somewhere else, but there are a lot more liberals to move around too, and more coming. The Pope can be ignored, because he invites all to ignore him and promises no discipline. The crisis is accelerating.

Anonymous said...

Pascal wrote: "Maitland-Newcastle is, of course, far from being the only diocese where the bishop has actively blocked the application of Summorum Pontificum."

Very true. Those who have tried to have Summorum Pontificum applied in the Pittsburgh Diocese have been shut down, too (I have a letter from the diocese which basically says there is one EF location - which was established pre-SP - and it is going to stay that way because a "stable group" cannot be newly formed - in other words, SP only applies to pre-existing "stable groups"). Other than an occasional Friday night Mass done by a ICSKP priest who comes from out of state, SP has produced absolutely no fruit in this diocese that I'm aware of (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) - and that is NOT because people have not petitioned to have SP applied. Yes we have appealed to the PCED - no reply.

So yes, the title "As if SP and UE didn't exist" describes my experience.

Wishing all those in Maitland-Newcastle, as well as others in disobedient dioceses, the best. Truth always prevails and we are eventually going to win this battle!

Anonymous said...

It's easier to combat the explicit than the pretender.

Here the bishop says yes for the TLM requesters, and tell priests not to celebrate.

Jack said...

Errors on the left are just as bad as errors on the right.

Disobedience is still disobedience.

\\the truth carried on those currents of thought borne by the Holy Spirit?\\

What does this mean, S. Petersen?

Most holy Theotokos, save us.

Anonymous said...

And the FSSPX is supposed to join up with this crowd?

Gratias said...

The solution to this disobedience is to only appoint bishops that have themselves officiated both forms of the Mass. A leader should know the entire range of the Roman liturgy.

A few good appointments can make a big difference through their example. We should have bishops from FSSP, and have the Pope request Opus Dei to join the TLM.

Colleen Hammond said...

They HAD the TLM at one parish in El Paso, Texas...but the Bishop just sent the priest 250 miles out of town into the desert. Why? For teaching and explaining the Catholic stance on homosexuality.

This echoes what recently happened in Cananda.

If you would like to respectfully contact the Bishop and ask that Fr Rodriguez be reinstated to his flock, or that the Bishop provides them the Traditional Latin Mass according to Pope Benedict's express wishes, here is the contact information:

Most Reverend Bishop Armando X. Ochoa

499 St Matthews
El Paso, Texas 79907
915-872-8419 (Bishop's Office)
915-872-8409 (Fax)
915-872-8400 (Main Line)

Alan Aversa said...

The El Paso, Texas, bishop is basically ignoring SP and UE, too, in relocating that diocese's only EF Mass priest over 200 miles away just because he proclaimed the true Catholic teaching regarding acts of sodomy.

See Michael Vorris's recent interview.

Anonymous said...

'Errors on the left are just as bad as errors on the right.'

We are not talking about the Republican$ or Demorats here. It is about Catholics vs. pretenders.

I assume you would call St. Athanasius disobedient as well.

If it wasn't for the 'disobedience' of Lefevbre and others, the protestant takeover would have been done without any trouble.


Anonymous said...

Honesty, Ferraiuolo, I can't bring myself to say a single prayer for this disgusting man. I CAN bring myself to say many prayers for his chastisement - for his very heavy chastisement. I want to see this man punished, and punished severely.

Is this wrong.

Anonymous said...

This Bishop Wright is being received this very day by the Holy Father as part of the ad limina visit of the Australian bishops to the Holy See. One wonders what, if anything, the Holy Father said to him on this matter.


Anonymous said...

The level of uncharity in some of these comments will not encourage the Bishop of Maitland to support his "stable group" if he should read them. It will be further evidence for his probable predjudice that all traditionalists are bigoted right-wing crazies. It will ultimately not help these poor suffering people in Maitland.

Calling a biship a pig and praying for his chastisement is downright pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Very disagreeable. I haven't pieced together any timelines yet but it seems since Cardinal Ouellette (Quebec) took over the Bishops' dicastery, it seems the strange ones are getting appointed. Look at that one for the Phillipines, and now this one for Australia. Perhaps the Pope misjudged Ouellette and his appointment.

Ferraiuolo said, "Say at least one Ave Maria for this poor bishop."

Well, say two Aves for the poor people who have to suffer such a bishop.



Long-Skirts said...

Kitchener Waterloo Traditional Catholic said...

"... The faithful need to petition Ecclesia Dei. Follow the chain of command;"


They cock their pens
And write their pappy
Spill their ink
On trees once sappy.

They do not fight
With soul and might
They'd rather sit
And letter write.

Oh, these our lords
Approved patricians
Who give their lives
For bloody petitions.

Tom Esteban said...

Woah. What happened to the respect due to the Office of Bishop and to the dignity of every person? Christian charity, folks. Criticism can be legitimate and fruitful, but some of these comments are shocking. Let's not forget this man is a successor to the Apostles. Pray for him; write to him; write to Rome but don't call him names. Imagine if the Left were to start saying these things about Bp. Fellay - would you all agree, or would you say "wait a second, your criticism is one thing but your insults are another thing entirely!".

Don't make things worse than they already are. And that goes for Fr. Michael Rodriguez and his Bishop too. Charity, meekness, love, respect. These can work perfectly well with firmness, justice, tradition and correction. Let's not lose sight of the goal here - it's winning souls and greater conversion to Christ; not "one-upping" each other.

Matthew said...


What a foolish letter. You insult a Bishop. You have no way to know if he is personally a "slave of pride."

What do you think His Excellency's reaction to such a letter will be? Perhaps along the lines of "if only I could exile Fr. Rodriguez's followers too!" Recall that Fr. Rodriguez, in response to his "transfer," said something to the effect of 'I was ordained a priest to offer sacrifice and to preach the truth. Obedience to my Bishop is an integral aspect of being a priest.'

As Tom Esteban wrote, we can and ought to write letters to Bishops and to Rome, etc., but do not spread such disrespect to a Successor of the Apostles, no matter how much you dislike his decision. Take him to task for the execution of his office, but dare not to call him a "slave of pride."

Your conduct in this matter is sad.

Anonymous said...

Tom Esteban and others are 'shocked' about the lack of charity towards the bishop. Yes, lots of evil people here...yes, let's just hold hands and everything will be fine.

Did St. Paul lack charity when he corrected St. Peter? Just wondering.

I agree with Matt. Let's say two Aves for the poor people that need to put up with this modernist clergy.


Jitpring said...

Matthew, as a recent convert, you're clearly not yet fully aware of the gravity of this warfare. As I just said, the time for namby-pamby diplo-speak is over. These traitorous bishops and their allies must be opposed, with no quarter.

Anonymous said...

Jitpring said...

Jitpring, your letter to the Bishop in question is an example of what a communique should not be:
a bull in the China shop.

Lee Lovelock-Jemmott said...

This Bishop should be disposed forthwith. Wolves like this need to be cast into oblivion!

Jitpring said...

Has namby-pamby diplo-speech worked? It's failed. Miserably. Direct, unequivocal speech - speech from the trenches - is now called for. I won't waltz while the ship sinks.

Counter-productive? But has namby-pamby diplo-speech been productive? It has: of ever more rot.

To battle!

Jitpring said...

Are there no soldiers left? No warriors? O age, thou art shamed! O shame, where is thy blush?

pete said...

stleychgGarabandal had predicted long ago an open, visible schism in the Church. Surprise, surprise, it's just about to break out; the water is just about the boiling point.
I'm for the E form, but what is far more prudent is the option mentioned of the Old Mass in English with the new lectionary readings. That would be an enormous improvement over what we've got now!

Melchior Cano said...


Yes, thank you...without Garabandal...well, who knows what we'd be doing?

Anonymous said...

and the sspx is not in full commuion!

somnambulist said...

This disastrous appointment is entirely the work of Cardinal Pell who chose Fr Wright to be Parish Priest of Liverpool, the largest parish in the Archdiocese of Sydney. Wright was vice rector in the eighties of the vile St Patrick's Seminary in Sydney, a hot bed of every type of corruption. How did such a man become a bishop? Benedict is Pope and Cardinal Pell is bishop and this is what we get!I hope the scales start to fall from the eyes of some of the American readers of this blog, as they have fallen from us poor abandoned Australians. Cardinal Pell is another Schonborn.

Gratias said...

A grave problem for the implementation of our treasured Summorum Pontificum is that when a priest starts offering the Latin Mass the Bishop transfers him to the outskirts. Fr. Rodriguez of El Paso (who gave a wonderful interview linked above) is not the only one. In our Parish this happened two times already. Benedict XVI is openly disobeyed.

Anonymous said...

It's the same in my "conservative" diocese. We have one TLM at 8:00 am on Sunday. A number of the younger priests know how to say the traditional Mass, but won't do so. The only reason I can surmise is for fear of reprisals from the bishop (e.g., being moved to the outskirts of the diocese). The chaos at NO Masses is getting worse to the point that we are trying to go to the TLM, despite the difficulties at times involved. We can't raise our children in the chaos and hope to inculcate the Catholic faith at the same time. We asked the bishop about SP/UE, and he said that the diocese has the 8:00 am Mass. I'm thankful that we at least have that.


Anonymous said...

And people say there is no longer any "state of necessity' justifying the SSPX conducting its apostolate independently. As long as hirelings are appointed, we will need a strong, independent, unmuzzled SSPX to preserve the Faith and the Mass, without being beholden to the whitened sepulchres such as this bishop and the those in the Curia and chanceries around the world!

Anonymous said...

"Tom Esteban and others are 'shocked' about the lack of charity towards the bishop. Yes, lots of evil people here...yes, let's just hold hands and everything will be fine."

Holding hands does nothing. Prayer does everything.

"Did St. Paul lack charity when he corrected St. Peter? Just wondering."

St. Paul and St. Peter were colleagues. I suspect most of those commenting here are not priests, much less bishops.

Tom Esteban said...

Yes, we are engaged in a spiritual battle. But that battle is not separate from our own spiritual battles nor the spiritual battles of our Catholic brethren. You cannot simply go into the field guns blazing and take the life of those who are on your side.

Nobody, least of all me, said that we should simply hold hands and sing a kumbaya (in fact, that would be horrid); or say a few Ave's and think we've solved the issue (but in fact, we should increase our prayers too!). Why do you suppose that unless you are insulting someone you can make no change? Why do you suppose that vitriol is the way forward? You need to lose the false dichotomy in your head, it is a seed planted by the evil one. Like all of his seeds, this one has truth. Yes, we want change, but the way to do this isn't to lose our charity, hope, trust, love and respect. All these things can be had even if we speak firmly.

You catch more flies with honey. To a Bishop who has no concern for the Latin Mass, sending him a letter condemning his soul will only further his own bias - perhaps he thinks all those "Traditionalists" are judgemental, whiney, holier-than-thou Pharisees with not an ounce of diplomacy. Congratulations - if he reads some of the comments here you will have entrenched such a view!

If Our Lord came with a whip to sort things out as He did in the temple; I would be the last to complain. But He is God. I'm not. I will be judged; and God will not make me a part time consultant when He judges His Bishops. The situation is delicate. Pick your battles wisely! Guns blazing writing letters to a Bishop will do more harm than good. Appeal to His sense of being a Shepherd. Tell him how you're disappointed; how you wish to experience the fullness of beauty of the faith. There are times we can be critical, and firm. And when that time comes we can call upon Our Lord and His Angels to lead the battle - but as long as I see my own pride leading the way and calling me on to do things I'm gonna do the exact opposite and act with a little thing called 'prudence'.

Jordanes551 said...

"Did St. Paul lack charity when he corrected St. Peter? Just wondering."

Expressing outrage anonymously or semi-anonymously in a weblog comment box is not exactly offering Bishop Wright public correction or rebuke. If he participated here, it would be different. Also, I doubt St. Paul's correction of St. Peter was expressed in language that showed disrespect.

Anonymous said...

When this man was named bishop many were worried!The man is clearly ignorant. We have a word for men like this in our country. We call them "bogans. Many of our bishops are "bogans". It is true Australians speak an English dialect. However with it comes a terrible conceit that means they are xenophobic about other languages. Even the language of the Church!

Anonymous said...


I am not sure what you really meant with your criticism of 'anonymous or semi-anonymous' comments. Do I need to list all my personal info before expressing my opinion? If that makes a difference in this case, please, tell me and I will put my full name on the screen right away.

As far as the tone of the criticism toward the bishop, I have not written anything to him but I do understand the frustration. It should be clear by now that there are plenty of infiltrators within the clergy. I hope we can agree on this.

To a 'real' Anon:

In regards to your comment about St. Paul and St. Peter being 'colleagues,' well, in reality, St. Peter was the Pope. A step above, at least. You should check Michael Voris follow up video about the situation in El Paso and hear for yourself the 'teachings' being passed on to the faithful there. And, please, show me any document in which it is written that the faithful should just keep quiet and follow erroneous teachings (make sure to check the video).


Anonymous said...

We are 50 plus years into the "new springtime" and the "spirit of Vatican II". Many of us have tried the diplomatic route with local bishops and have gotten nowhere. It is natural, then, that the frustration level has risen to the point where we can do nothing but express our utter dismay at local Ordinaries and their toadies, calling them to account for their utter failure to assume the role of Pastors Bonus. Yet, in doing so, we run the risk of being shot as messengers who are being shot for their message. So be it, we shall stand up for what is right no matter the consequences. St. Athanasius pray for us and St. Michael defend us in battle.


Joe B said...

I also am not looking for the abolition of the Novus Ordo, though I dearly want to see it. But I don't see it happening until the Novus Ordo side runs very short on priests, which will eventually happen but will certainly take longer than I have to wait unless Heaven intervenes miraculously.

I just think that the protection and promotion of the TLM and trad priests, which has always been SSPX's primary mission, is achievable and of paramount importance to all of us, undeniably largely thanks to Archbishop Lefebvre and his order. So SSPX is good for the church, and I certainly believe God and His Mother are with them. No, God is not against the Holy Father ("Rome" being too nebulous to call), as this Holy Father's inclinations toward SSPX, and those of the last, show.

Even Canon Law, which didn't even exist as such prior to 1917 and didn't last one century before it had to undergo a major revision, is too broadly worded to say that it is against SSPX (just two examples being the highest law being charity for souls and the state of crisis loophole). But it isn't even the final word. Traditional concepts of church law like the limitations of unjust laws and of laws unenforced, and of actual practice overruling written law, seem overriding to me, and warn against putting too much weight on a written sanction which was clearly a terribly unjust act motivated by ill will toward Catholic tradition. I think those who invoke it are quite Pharisaical. Give it time, the law will be shown to have been on the side of the significant good SSPX has achieved. They never were enemies deserving of church rebuke.

Now this here is where I was going to give you all a long lecture supporting the use of passion in opposing church weaknesses, but unfortunately I haven't had time to develop and perfect it on my two year old Granddaughter yet. She keeps on running away when I start. Bother.

Anonymous said...

So this era of Bishops teaches us lay Faithful, it is OK to disobey the Pope...What do they think is the result? Well it is Ok for us lay Faithful to disobey out Bishops. Why not? If the Pope can be disobeyed, why not the lesser Bishops? If anyone disagrees with that I have said just remember this is what I have been taught by example from out beloved, most Holy Bishops. Thanks to all of them !

New Catholic said...

Last Anon.,

Your comment is as bright and sharp as it is concise. Yes, that is exactly it. Many of them undermine and ridicule the Supreme Authority and Sacred Tradition (of which they cannot dispose) the whole time; and many of them use their powers to hide important things from the same Supreme Authority, from the faithful, and from the legitimate authority of the Political Commonwealth - and they are surprised the faithful do not wish to obey them blindly as if they were Pharaoh in Memphis?...


Jordanes551 said...

I am not sure what you really meant with your criticism of 'anonymous or semi-anonymous' comments. Do I need to list all my personal info before expressing my opinion? If that makes a difference in this case, please, tell me and I will put my full name on the screen right away.

Lopes, I was not criticising anonymous or semi-anonymous comments. (I and other Rorate Caeli contributors are at least semi-anonymous.) I was pointing out that anonymously or semi-anonymously posting a legitimate complaint or criticism in an weblog comment box cannot be equated with St. Paul's direct and certainly not anonymous rebuke of St. Peter. I was also objecting to the tone of some of the criticism. Let's remember was St. Jude wrote about St. Michael the Archangel's confrontation with the Devil over the body of Moses. If St. Michael would speak such to Satan, perhaps we could think twice about using language such as "pig bishop" even when a bishop is clearly doing harm to the Church.

Anonymous said...


Well, I did not even notice this 'pig bishop' comment. I now understand your comment about St. Paul and St. Peter.


Anonymous said...

Obedience to lawful authority is a virtue sadly forgotten in today's world. Notice I said "lawful authority" for there is such a thing as following someone like Satan who has no such lawful authority. Sadly, we are confronted today with decisions concerning authority that in former times we would not have given second thought to. That is the tragedy of our times.


Jitpring said...

For those troubled by the tone of my letter to Ochoa, know that I sent it to his office in the virtually certain knowledge that his minions would shield him from it. That said, if I knew that he'd actually see a letter, I'm not sure I'd go ahead and use namby-pamby diplo-speech. Probably not.

A Canberra Observer said...

I shouldn't be but I am amazed at the intemprance of some of the comments, and of a reported individual correspondence to the bishop in Texas.

Tradition doesn't need external enemies when her friends show no prudence. Even in the heat of battle discipline and common sense are needed. Tactics which are doomed to failure are just down right silly.

Anonymous said...

Please don't think that the fight is unified. Confused Catholics hold different viewpoints, fight from different vantages if you will.

In my parish I have seen the emails our bishop sends to people who voice their opinion and and disagreement with him. The bishops emails and texts are far less charitable than you you might think.

My view is that I can not sit idly by and shrug my shoulders and say to my self or you for that matter, "the Pope has allowed this mess so I am not guilty." NOT

One thing I am certain is that a liberal modernist (doesn't matter what rank he holds) is not a friend of a Catholic. This person is our enemy of the worst kind because he destroys from within.

I also know, from my experience,that when the laity withholds tithing and funds on the collection plate even liberal bishops will listen.

I pray you change your name from 'observer' to 'take action'. No disrespect intended and I too wish we could all be gentlemen scholars but this is war....

maryg said...

Re suggestions here to send letters to Bishops Wright and Ochoa: What do you think happens to such correspondence? Right into the round file, that's what. The Bishops have a Boss. It's time for another Athanasius in Peter's chair. Literally.
From Mary G

Anonymous said...

Re: El Paso

A potentially more effective tactic, and one within the bounds of justice, would be to write the Apostolic Nunio. I have family members who, after speaking with a bishop and getting no results, wrote the nuncio about abuses (with a CC to the bishop). Results were actually achieved. The Vatican may not be fully aware of this situation, but if enough people speak up, something might be done.

Here's contact information I found online:

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
3339 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W
Washington, DC, USA


Anonymous said...

I think some context is needed here. The community that supports the EF Mass in this Diocese is tiny and could not support a priest or Parish of its own. There are no priests in the Diocese that can perform the EF Mass and we rely on getting a priest from Sydney.

I think that there is a SSPX community nearby so maybe that will be an option for them in the future.

Quite frankly, after the last couple of Bishops we have had here, I think that we are lucky to have Bishop Wright and I think he'll be very good for us.

He seems to have a personal opinion that the Sunday mass should be a whole of community mass. Given that there is not a community which can support the EF here in its own right, aren't we lucky that he has no objection to a weekly mass being held on another day?