Texas Pastor Removed Over Latin Masses

Seattle Catholic ^ | July 4, 2003 | Peter Miller

[welfareworker]

Whats crazy about this whole thing is not that the bishop came down on Fr. Zig, it was how quickly and how hard he came down on him.

At Chicago's St. Sabina parish, the pastor had a Al Sharpton give the homily at Sunday Mass earlier this year. St. Joan's in Minneapolis had Senator Dayton give it once last year.

Both individuals, Sharpton and Dayton, are protestants, politicians, laymen and pro-abortion. Against every canon and GIRM in the book.

Yet, the pastors of those parishes continue on in their posts with mild reprimands.

I guess the Latin mass is the unforgivable sin.

[ultima ratio]

"No pope may bind a future pope on things which are changeable in the liturgy. To the degree that you assert that one did, you are incorrect. And many popes made changes to the Mass after Pope Pius V."

1. The purpose of Pius V was to fix the Mass for all time. This very purpose would be undermined if another pope could abrogate this declaration. But, in fact, the question is moot--since Paul VI never abrogated the old Mass. Hence, the papal bull of Pius V stands.

2. Many popes made changes--but only in very minor ways that did not touch the liturgy in any essential way. The Novus Ordo was not such a change. It was the fabrication of a wholly new rite--which had never occurred before and was an alarming departure from tradition. So you cannot make the false claim that Paul VI "changed" anything. He did not make changes. He concocted something altogether new and different, starting from scratch, without the aid of the Holy Spirit.

3. As for disobedience--it is never absolutely proscribed. There is a higher command than pope or bishops, and that is God's own law. St. Paul made this statement to the Galatians and it is irrefutable: "If even an angel came down from Heaven and preached to you a gospel other than what I have preached, let him be anathema." So it is not enough for a superior to give a command and expect obedience. He must give a command which does not superced his own authority in the first place. He must be, in other words, give commands in conformity with Sacred Tradition. This is because the faith itself supercedes everything else. One is not obliged to follow commands which contravene the imperatives of the Catholic faith.

[saradippity]

Yes,every thing I said is fact,and there is so much more.But it is also true that currently we have some of the most wonderful,holy,intelligent and orthodox young priests.

To this point,and because of our recently resigned bishop's inability or unwillingness to act,they have quietly gone about their business,keeping a low profile; preaching the Gospel,teaching the Truth and administering the sacraments.

I had heard that Pope John Paul II,saw his mission as planting the Word of God throughout the world,which we can see ,he has tried to do. He supposedly believed that it was his job to sow and anothers to harvest. I do know I read that he said "God will do the harvesting".

At a point,he came to realize that he needed to start separating the wheat from the chaff,himself.That is what I believe is happening all over this country,exemplified in my own diocese by the "accident" of the bishop,which I thought was an act of Divine Intervention signaling a new beginning for the Phoenix diocese. I pray the new bishop will bring the Faith and the Catholic Church back to us.

[saradippity]

Ninenot,I was only speaking to "those that recoil" at the mention of a Latin Mass.I suggest it to a lot of priests and most respond reasonably,even if I don't agree with them.It was only the ones that shrink from the suggestion that I started to think about the supernatural powers of the Latin. Sorry,I wasn't clearer.to the best of my recollections,over thirty years there have only been three that had that frightening reaction. One,thirty years ago and the other two in the past three years.

[ninenot]

Please advise if you need any thoughts on the Old Rite--what to know, what to expect. Be happy to help.

[ultima ratio]

superced=supercede

He must be, in other words=He must, in other words

[ninenot]

We all agree--some more vigorously than others--that there are a number of apples in the barrel which stink.

Having said that, the Church is indefectible and the bozos have not yet been able to change one jot or tittle of doctrine or dogma.

So: the Holy Spirit is still "running the show."

[ultima ratio]

"He doesn't want kids going to WYD. He wants us to despair."

I do indeed think the modernists get it wrong sucking up to the young by emulating their pop culture by such papal extravaganzas--especially in the face of an almost universal breakdown in catechesis. If the Pope wishes to do something for the young, let him get after their almost universal ignorance about the faith--not at massive rallies which are the scenes of multiple liturgical abuses, but by cleaning up the seminaries and producing better priests to catechize the young.

To say this is not the same as saying I want anybody to despair. What I want is for people like you to join in the conflict on the right side--on the side of traditional faith. You want to pretend there is no war--or if there is one, it's all the fault of traditionalists like myself. But the conflict was imposed from above--by authorities who have asserted doctrines and practices disparaged by their preconciliar predecessors. In effect they want us to choose them, rather than all previous popes and councils. But to place us in such a situation is wrong to begin with. We should not have been forced to make such a choice in the first place.

[Loyalist]

He wants to divide us, he wants us to echo his, "Non servium."

The devil can also use the call to obedience and fidelity to the hierarchy against itself.

If first he said, "Non serviam", he can yet also say, "Serviam", if it suits his purpose.

[Antoninus]

Shocking how quick these bishops are to remove priests who dare to celebrate the Tridentine Mass, particularly when compared with how slow they are to move against every other liturgical abuse.... not to mention the lavendars.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

No pope may bind a future pope on things which are changeable in the liturgy

So you are declaring Pius V to be in error? Pius V granted a universal indult for all time. Pius V acted to protect the sacred liturgy. Are you trying to say that was not within his power?

There is a disturbing, 'nails on a chalkboard' trend emerging here among certain posters. Where do you get off decreeing what I am and what I believe? It is not your business, nor within your power to declare me "SSPX", "Protestant" or "non-Catholic" in your eyes. Even if it was you are not in possession of any facts to make that decision. You and a few other posters here need to stick to the facts and not resort to temper tantrums and personal attacks when things don't go your way. If you can't enter into a logical, civil discussion then don't bother at all.

[Antoninus]

Insane ca. 1960: Serially committing homosexual acts and saying Mass in English.

Insane ca. 2003: Thinking that homosexual acts are vile, disgusting and sinful and saying Mass in Latin.

And some would argue this is somehow progress...

[Antoninus]

Modernist Rome will never accept the traditional Mass--it is much too Catholic.

Last time I checked, Fiorenza was bishop of Houston, not Rome.

[Antoninus]

As one who falls into this camp, my first Tridentine was an educational and spiritual awakening.

Ditto here. My initial reaction was: "Why did we ever replace this with what we have today???"

[B Knotts]

It is true that Bishop Fiorenza has granted an indult Tridentine Mass...but only one a week, as far as I can tell, in one of the largest dioceses in the country (#11 according to their web site).

I think it is safe to say that he has not kept to the spirit of Ecclesia Dei, in that the application of the traditional Mass in his diocese is neither "wide" nor "generous."

Yes, the priest was wrong for disobeying his bishop, but I think that this situation could have possibly been avoided had the bishop been just a little more accomodating to the needs of his priests and laity.

And, no, I've never been to a traditional Mass, as they are not "widely" or "generously" available in my neck of the woods.

[B Knotts]

they also wear a chapel veil

In doing some reading about indult Masses, I've noticed this is the case, and it is presented as a requirement. I find this disturbing, as this is no longer a requirement as per the Canon Law of 1983.

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/head_coverings_in_church.htm

There's certainly nothing wrong with women choosing to wear a head covering, but I don't think it should be presented as if it is a requirement.

[sinkspur]

So you are declaring Pius V to be in error? Pius V granted a universal indult for all time. Pius V acted to protect the sacred liturgy. Are you trying to say that was not within his power?

It is not within the power of one Pope to bind another liturgically. Sitest is correct. Popes have changed the liturgy, throughout history.

[Thorondir]

I'll volunteer to run his bodyguards, since that's somewhat within my area of expertice and would be the primary need of any pope willing to clean up the mess.

[Desdemona]

No, the bottom line is that I ran across a few things this morning in prayer books, etc., that say to defend priests, even when they are in the wrong. He disobeyed an order, yes. That doesn't mean I'm not going to defend him, because I think he has a point and the bishop is abusing the vows.

And your analogy was a bad one, IMO.

[Desdemona]

Unless you're willing to concede that the new rite is valid, inherently good, worthy, sufficiently teaches Catholic doctrine, and cannot be the legitimate cause of this priest's disobedience, it seems to me that you are being grossly inconsistent.

Valid, yes, but there's no real art to it. It's just void in that area and not really uplifting without a little help from bells and good music. (Canon I is alright, but the others...) It should be able to stand by itself. THAT's more of my problem. I looked at the translation of the old Mass and it's much more complete. The other is dumbed down quite a bit.

BTW, this morning we had a guest organist who frankly was one of the best I've ever heard. It was phenominal. That organ hasn't been played like that in years, and it's a HUGE organ. It was wonderful just to be able to sink into that music and feel the soul stirred. Off the top of my head, I don't remember the recessional piece, but it was one of those old ones that takes a real master to play. You could feel the power of the air pushing through the pipes. THAT's what the NO is missing. That life, that vitality.