Posted on 07/15/2004 6:17:56 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
Catholics exhibit fidelity to the Tradition of Holy Mother Church in many ways. Each of us has a distinctive, unrepeatable immortal soul that has personal characteristics of its own not shared by anyone else. Not even identical twins are the same in every respect. This plurality of souls in the Mystical Bride of Christ is reflected in the many different communities of men and women religious that have developed over the Church’s history. Each community has its own charism and mission. Ideally, each community of men and women religious should be totally faithful to everything contained in the Deposit of Faith and expressed and protected in the authentic Tradition of the Church. The means of expressing this fidelity, however, will vary from community to community.
What is true of communities of men and women religious is true also of us all, including our priests. Some priests have the patience of Saint Francis de Sales or Saint John Bosco, meek and mild, able to handle the rough seas that beset Holy Mother Church and/or themselves personally with perfect equanimity. Other priests have had the bluntness of St. John Mary Vianney and St. Padre Pio, mincing no words in their sermons about the necessity of rooting out sin and the possibility of going to Hell for all eternity. Both St. John Mary Vianney and St. Padre Pio were devoted to their role as an alter Christus in the confessional, using that hospital of Divine Mercy to administer the infinite merits of Our Lord’s Most Precious Blood to bring sacramental absolution to those to whom they had preached in blunt terms.
In addition to fidelity, though, there are different ways of expressing courage in the midst of persecutions and sufferings. Some Catholics stood up quite directly to the unjust and illicit dictates of the English Parliament, which had been passed at the urging of King Henry VIII, at the time of the Protestant Revolt in England. Others kept their silence for as long as was possible, as was the case with Saint Thomas More, who discharged his mind publicly only after he had been found guilty on the basis of perjured testimony of denying the supremacy of the king as the head of the Church in England. Some priests in the Elizabethan period, such as St. Edmund Campion, almost dared officials to arrest them as they went to different locales to offer Holy Mass or as they took groups to the Tower of London. Other priests went quietly from house to house to offer the Traditional Mass underground as both the civil and ecclesiastical authorities in England used every sort of pressure imaginable to convince holdout “Romans” to go over to Protestantism and worship in the precusor liturgy of our own Novus Ordo Missae. Still other newly ordained priests came over from France, knowing that they might be able to offer only one Mass in England before they were arrested and executed.
The same thing occurred in France 255 years after the arrest and execution of Saints John Fisher and Thomas More. Some priests simply stood up to the agents of the French Revolution. Others, such as Blessed Father William Chaminade, donned disguises as they went from place to place, much as Blessed Padre Miguel Augustin Pro did in Mexico prior to his execution at the hands of the Masonic revolutionaries in Mexico on November 23, 1927. Ignatius Cardinal Kung, then the Bishop of Shanghai, China, was hauled before a dog-track stadium in his see city in 1956 before thousands of spectators. The Red Chinese authorities expected him to denounce the pope and thus to save himself from arrest. The brave bishop exclaimed the same thing as Blessed Padre Miguel Augustin Pro, “Long live Christ the King,” and was hauled off to spend over thirty years in prison before being released. Oh, yes, there are so many ways for priests to demonstrate their fidelity and courage in the midst of persecutions and sufferings.
Well, many bishops and priests who are faithful to the fullness of the Church’s authentic Tradition have been subjected to a unspeakable form of persecution in the past thirty-five to forty years: treachery from within the highest quarters of the Church herself. Men who have held fast to that which was believed always, everywhere and by everyone prior for over 1,900 years found themselves termed as “disobedient,” “schismatic,” “heretical,” and “disloyal” for their resisting novelties that bore no resemblance to Catholicism and a great deal of resemblance to the very things that were fomented by Martin Luther and John Calvin and Thomas Cranmer, things for which Catholics half a millennium ago shed their blood rather than accept. Many priests who have tried to remain faithful to Tradition within the framework of a diocesan or archdiocesan structure have been sent to psychiatric hospitals or penalized by being removed from their pastorates or by being denied pastorates altogether. Others, though, have faced more severe penalties.
Angelus Press, which is run by the Society of Saint Pius X, put out a book earlier this year, Priest, Where is Thy Mass? Mass, Where is Thy Priest?, which discussed the stories of seventeen priests who had decided to offer only the Traditional Latin Mass and to never again offer the Novus Ordo Missae. One of those priests is my good friend, Father Stephen Zigrang, who offered the Traditional Latin Mass in his [now] former parish of Saint Andrew Church in Channelview, Texas, on June 28-29, 2003, telling his parishioners that he would never again offer the new Mass.
As I reported extensively at this time last year, Father Zigrang was placed on a sixty day leave-of-absence by the Bishop of Galveston-Houston, the Most Reverend Joseph Fiorenza, and told to seek psychological counseling, preferably from Father Benedict Groeschel, C.F.R. Father Zigrang took his two month leave of absence, making a retreat at Saint Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota, in early August of last year, returning to the Houston area to take up residence in the Society’s Queen of Angels Chapel in Dickinson, Texas. Bishop Fiorenza met with Father Zigrang in early September, seeming at the time to let him stay for a year with the Society while the diocese continued to pay his health insurance premiums. Within days of that early September meeting, however, Fiorenza was threatening to suspend Father Zigrang by the beginning of October if he did not vacate Queen of Angels and return to a diocesan assignment.
October of 2003 came and went. Father Zigrang heard no word from Bishop Fiorenza or the chancery office until he received the following letter, dated Jun 10, 2004:
Dear Father Zigrang:
Once more I appeal to you to cease your association with the Society of St. Pius X and return to your responsibilities as a priest of the Diocese of Galveston-Houston
Your continued association with a schismatic group which has severed communion with the Holy Father is confusing and a scandal to many of Christ’s faithful. You are well aware that without appropriate jurisdiction the marriages witnessed and confessions heard by the priests of the St. Society of St. Paul X are invalid and people are being lead to believe otherwise. You are also aware that the Holy See has asked the faithful not to attend Masses celebrated in the Chapels of the Society of St. Pius X.
I plead with you to return by July 1, 2004, to the presbyterate of the Diocese of Galveston-Houston and receive a priestly assignment from me. This letter serves as a penal precept (c. 1319) and is a final canonical warning (c. 1347.1). If I do not hear from you by June 30, 2004, I will impose a just penalty for disobeying a legitimate precept (c. 1371.2). The just penalty may include suspension (c. 133.1), nn 1-2: prohibition of all acts of the power of orders and governance.
I offer this final warning after consultation with the Holy See and will proceed to impose a penalty if you persist in disobedience to a legitimate precept. It is my fervent hope and constant prayer that you not remain out of union with the Holy Father.
Fraternally in Christ,
Joseph A. Fiorenza, Bishop of Galveston-Houston
Reverend R. Troy Gately, Vice Chancellor
Overlooking Bishop Fiorenza’s John Kerry-like gaffe in terming the Society of Saint Pius X the “St. Society of St. Paul X,” the letter reproduced above makes the erroneous assertion that the Society of Saint Pius X is in schism and that they are not in communion with the Holy Father. A series of articles in The Remnant has dealt with this very issue at great length. Fiorenza’s contentions that the marriages witnessed and the confessions heard by the Society of Saint Pius X are invalid also flies in the face of the fact that the Holy See “regularized” the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney in Campos, Brazil, without demanding the convalidation of the marriages their priests had witnesses nor asking that confessions be re-heard. The glaring inconsistency of the canonical rhetoric of Vatican functionaries and their actual practices continues to be lost on Bishop Fiorenza.
Father Zigrang did not respond to Bishop Fiorenza’s June 10 letter. He received another letter, dated July 2, 2004, the contents of which are so explosive as to contain implications for the state of the Church far beyond the case of Father Zigrang and far beyond the boundaries of the Diocese of Galveston-Houston:
Dear Father Zigrang:
With great sadness I inform you that, effective immediately, you are suspended from the celebration of all sacraments, the exercise of governance and all rights attached to the office of pastor (Canon 1333.1, nn 1-2-3).
This action is taken after appropriate canonical warnings (canon 1347) and failure to obey my specific directive that you cease the affiliation with the schismatic Society of St. Pius X and accept an assignment to serve as a priest of the Diocese of Galveston-Houston (Canon 1371.2).
I want to repeat what I have said to you in person and in the written canonical warnings, that I prayerfully urge you to not break communion with the Holy Father and cease to be associated with the schism which rejects the liciety of the Novus Ordo Mass, often affirmed by Pope John Paul II. This schism also calls into question the teachings of the Second Vatican Council regarding ecumenism and the enduring validity of the Old Testament covenant God established with the people of Israel.
Your return to full union with the Church and to the acceptance of an assignment to priestly ministry in the Diocese of Galveston-Houston will be joyfully received as an answer to prayer. May the Holy Spirit lead and guide you to renew the promise of obedience you made on the day of your ordination.
Fraternally in Christ,
Most Reverend Joseph A. Fiorenza Bishop of Galveston-Houston
Reverend Monsignor Frank H. Rossi Chancellor
cc: His Eminence, Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, Commissio Ecclesia Dei
Bishop Fiorenza’s July 2, 2004, letter is riddled with errors.
First, The Society of Saint Pius X does not reject the liciety of the Novus Ordo Missae. Its founder, the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, criticized the nature of the Novus Ordo and pointed out its inherent harm. That is far different from saying that the Novus Ordo is always and in all instances invalid. Is Bishop Fiorenza claiming that any criticism of the Novus Ordo and efforts to demonstrate how it is a radical departure from Tradition are schismatic acts? Is Father Romano Thommasi, for example, to be taken to task for writing scholarly articles, based on the very minutes of the Consilium, about how Archbishop Annibale Bugnini lied about the true origin of the some constituent elements of the Novus Ordo?
Second, the Society is not, as noted above, in schism, at least not as that phrase was defined by the First Vatican Council. The Society recognizes that the See of Peter is occupied at present by Pope John Paul II. Its priests pray for the Holy Father and for the local bishop in the Canon of the Mass. The Society can be said to be disobedient to the Holy Father’s unjust edicts and commands. The Society of Saint Pius X is not in schism.
Third, Bishop Fiorenza seems to be stating that ecumenism is a de fide dogma of the Catholic Church from which no Catholic may legitimately dissent. If this is his contention, it is he who is grave error. Ecumenism is a pastoral novelty that was specifically condemned by every Pope prior to 1958. Pope Pius XI did so with particular eloquence in Mortalium Animos in 1928. Novelties that are not consonant with the authentic Tradition of the Church bind no one under penalty of sin, no less binds a priest under penalty of canonical suspension. A rejection of ecumenism constitutes in no way a schismatic act.
Fourth, Bishop Fiorenza’s assertion that the “Old Testament covenant God established with the people of Israel” is enduringly valid is itself heretical. No human being can be saved by a belief in the Mosaic Covenant, which was superceded in its entirety when the curtain was torn in two in the Temple on Good Friday at the moment Our Lord had breathed His last on the Holy Cross. It is a fundamental act of fidelity to the truths of the Holy Faith to resist and to denounce the heretical contention, made in person by Bishop Fiorenza to Father Zigrang last year, that Jews are saved by the Mosaic Covenant. Were the Apostles, including the first pope, Saint Peter, wrong to try to convert the Jews? Was Our Lord joking when He said that a person had no life in him if he did not eat of His Body and drink of His Blood?
Fifth, Bishop Fiorenza has failed repeatedly to take into account Father Zigrang’s aboslute rights under Quo Primum to offer the Immemorial Mass of Tradition without any episcopal approval:
Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever order or by whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us.
We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is to be forced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force–notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemoial prescription–except, however, if of more than two hundred years’ standing. Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this letter or heedlessly to venture to go contrary to this notice of Our permission., statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
It is apparently the case that Bishop Fiorenza received a “green light,” if you will, to act against Father Zigrang from Dario Cardinal Castrillion Hoyos, who is both the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy and the President of Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, to whom a copy of the July 2, 2004, suspension letter was sent. Father Zigrang surmises that Bishop Fiorenza brought up the issue of his case during the bishops’ ad limina apostolorum visit in Rome recently. Father believes that Cardinal Hoyos wants to send a signal to priests who might be tempted to follow his lead that Rome will let bishops crack down on them without mercy and without so much as an acknowledgment that Quo Primum actually means what it says. Whether or not the specific “schismatic” acts Father Zigrang is alleged to have committed by being associated with the Society of Saint Pius X at Queen of Angels Church in Dickinson, Texas, were outlined to Cardinal Hoyos by Bishop Fiorenza remains to be seen.
Naturally, the grounds on which Bishop Fiorenza suspended Father Zigrang are beyond the sublime. As my dear wife Sharon noted, “Doesn’t Bishop Fiorenza have a better canon lawyer on his staff than the one who advised him on the grounds of suspending Father Zigrang.” Indeed.
The very fact that Fiorenza could make these incredible claims and believes that he has a good chance of prevailing in Rome speaks volumes about the state of the Church in her human elements at present. Will Rome let the bishops govern unjustly and make erroneous assertions about “schism” as well as heretical claims (that a priest must accept that Jews are saved by the Mosaic Covenant and that ecumenism is a matter of de fide doctrine) with its full assent and approval? Will Rome countenance the same sort of misuse of power by local bishops upon traditional priests in the Twenty-first Century that was visited upon “Romans” by the civil state and the Anglican “church” in England from 1534 to 1729? The answers to these questions are probably self-evident. Putting them down in black and white, though, might help priests who are looking to Rome for some canonical protection for the Traditional Latin Mass to come to realize that they wait in vain for help from the Holy See, where the Vicar of Christ occupies himself at present with the writing of a book about existentialism!
There will be further updates on this matter as events warrant. Father Zigrang is weighing his options as to how to respond to the allegations contained in Bishop Fiorenza’s letter of suspension, understanding that the answers provided by the Holy See will have implications of obviously tremendous gravity. Given the intellectual dishonesty that exists in Rome at present, Father Zigrang’s case may only be decided on the technical grounds of “obedience” to his bishop, ignoring all of the other issues, including the rights of all priests under Quo Primum offer the Traditional Latin Mass without approval and their rights to never be forced to offer Holy Mass according to any other form.
To force Rome to act on what it might otherwise avoid, perhaps it might be wise for someone to bring a canonical denunciation of Bishop Fiorenza for his contentions about ecumenism and the “enduring validity” of the Mosaic Covenant, spelling out in chapter and verse how these things have been condemned in the history of the Church. Then again, Fiorenza could “defend” himself by simply pointing to the Pope himself, which is precisely why this matter has such grave implications. This matter is certain to be explored in great detail in the weeks and months ahead by competent canonists and by theologians who understand the authentic Tradition of the Catholic Church.
Father Zigrang noted the following in an e-mail to me dated July 14, 2004:
I examined canon 1371.2 (the canon that the Bishop says warrants my suspension), checking a good commentary, the disobedience of an Ordinary's legitimate precept may warrant a just penalty but not weighty enough to warrant a censure (e.g. suspension). I think this point may have been missed by the Bishop's hired canon lawyer, when the Bishop was weighing his options about what to do with one of his wayward priests. As I said to you before, the Bishop has a history of not suspending priests, even those who commit crimes beyond mere disobedience. Although lately I've been told he recently suspended a priest who attempted marriage with one of his parishioners. This was done about the time my suspension was in the works.
Our Lady, Queen of the Angels, pray for Father Zigrang.
Our Lady, Help of Christians, pray for all priests in Father Zigrang’s situation so that they will be aided by their seeking refuge in you in their time of persecution and trial.
Outraged bump
Here are the facts. Jurisdiction is ultimately supplied by God. The highest good in law is for the salvation of souls. Archbishop Lefebvere acted according to his conscience and under canon law even if you think you are in a state of emergency what constitutes a state of necessity is not explicitly defined in the Code of Canon Law. The relevant canon in fact says: "No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept: acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls" (Canon 1324, 4E°). When we speak of the "state of necessity" (sometimes called "state of emergency"), we mean that Lefebvre acted "by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience. Lefebvre believed he was saving the Old Latin Mass for posterity because Rome was not nor did it have intentions to ordain Bishops in the old Rite in order to carry it on. Don’t you find it odd that only the society of St. John Mary Vianney in Campos is the only traditional society with a traditional Bishop who has official recognition with Rome? They had to do this for them because they already had one. So Lefebvre was naturally suspicious because Rome would not give them a direct date.
Another fact Athanasius was excommunicated because he did not go along with the program any more than did Archbishop Lefebvre who did not wear horns and was an orthodox Bishop unlike most of the ones we have today. “A.D. 353. The Council of Arles. The Pope sent to it {448} several Bishops as legates. The Fathers of the Council, including the Pope's legate, Vincent, subscribed the condemnation of Athanasius. Paulinus, Bishop of Treves, was nearly the only one who stood up for the Nicene faith and for Athanasius. He was accordingly banished into Phrygia, where he died.
see
You need to get your facts straight. I don’t think you read Greek and Latin as Cardinal Newman did and this is what he said,”There is nothing, whether in the historians and holy fathers, or in his own letters, to prevent our coming to the conclusion, that Liberius communicated with the Arians, and confirmed the sentence passed by them against Athanasius; but he is not at all on that account to be called a heretic." see post 43.
Count Capponi of the Roman Rotta said, “Pope Liberius finally signed the excommunication of St. Athanasius under duress—in the twentieth century Pope Paul VI was admittedly taken in and hoodwinked by his misguided optimism, but there was no duress; (d) the present crisis is not only one of faith but of morals as well. In addition, today not only one dogma, albeit a very important one, is denied as with Arianism, but all dogmas, be it even the existence of a personal God!
see www.ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/CRIFAITH.HTM ‑ 30k
Trent and Que Primum mandated that any Rite in order to continue had to be in existence over 200 years such as say the “Dominican Rite”. There were too many Rites being practiced which were under 150 years old during the time of Trent and unlike today’s conciliar Popes Pope St. Pius V was willing to do something about it. The rite he canonized was not new but old he was just making sure that no on messed with it. I already quoted Trent to you which stated that no Pastor whatsoever which includes the Pope can create a New Rite. Now don’t throw around the term New Rite and say this Pope or that Pope before 1960 said we can have a New Rite because when that was said it was not said in the same sense which you and the radical liturgical “experts” meant it.
St. Vincent of Lerins (5th cent. A.D.), who stated that "a true and genuine Catholic…places nothing else ahead of the faith, neither the authority, the genius, the eloquence, nor philosophy of any man whatsoever, but is determined to hold and believe only those things whatsoever he knows the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient times. But whatsoever he shall perceive to have been introduced later by some one certain man, that which is new and unheard‑of, that which is contrary to all the saints, let him know that it does not pertain to religion but rather to temptation.
Decree of Papal Infallibility, promulgated by Pius IX at the First Vatican Council of 1870:
We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, is by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable.
Liberals, please note the last words. They say that “such definitions…are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable.”
Hence, once a doctrine has been defined by the Pope ex cathedra, be it by him acting alone or through a general council, he is prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching error. Therefore, these doctrines cannot be changed, not even by the future consent of the Church ‑ not even by a Pope himself. As St. Augustine (d. 430) said, “Rome has spoken, the case is now closed”.
Furthermore, according to the same council, not only are the doctrines unable to change, but also our interpretation of them. The Vat I Council declared that
“…the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention, to be perfected by human ingenuity; but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence, also, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our holy Mother the Church has once declared; nor is that meaning ever to departed from, under the pretence or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them.
And again, the same council also declared that
see Ses 3 Chapt 4:14 " If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of knowledge, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema.
First Vatican Council also stated Ses. 3 chapt 4– “the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles.”
Vatican I see Ses 3 Chapt 4:and Canon 3 Ses. 3 " If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of knowledge, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema."
Pius VI on 28 August, 1794, dealt the death‑blow to the influence of the
Council in his Bull "Auctorem Fidei", which condemned the propositions of this
Illegal council:
"[To contend that] ways must be prepared for people to unite their
voices with that of the whole Church ‑‑ if this be understood to
signify the introduction of the use of the vernacular language into
the liturgical prayers ‑‑ is condemned as false, rash, disturbing
to the order prescribed for the celebration of the sacred mysteries,
easily productive of many evils." (Auctorem Fidei)
Later in history, Pope Pius XII would again repeat the warning against
tampering with the liturgy in his encyclical "Mediator Dei" :
"This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless
antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise.
It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were
responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those
resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church,
... had every right and reason to condemn."
(Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei)
St. Athanasius, as did the heretical bishops of the East.
““Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”” (Epistle to the Catholics)
Dominick, while your point is a good one you're completely missing the larger one here. I'm beginning to think that I may have mistaken naivety for maliciousness when I first met you.
Most in the Society won't deny the validity of the NO-mass, only it's potential for harm, but forget about that for a minute because it's really not the point here.
Don't you find it simply outrageous that the only Catholics suffering official sanctions anymore are traditionalists for relatively minor offenses while flagrantly evil heretics and deviant criminals are giving aid and comfort?
This is nothing less than wickedness and sickness. No matter one's feelings on the SSPX or NO-mass, any Christian with a conscience must absorb this glaring truth.
What you in your post above are correctly calling for is for all of us to be the church militant, yet if we are to fight evil we must be able to correctly identify it. Whether you know it or not the imperfect SSPX is very much an ally in this battle, not an opponent.
Like many of his fellow Roman prelates, Fitzgerald is a two-faced liar.
"Archbishop Fitzgerald said further that he agreed with Father Dupuis that "the unity with God is not confined to the people who belong to the Church". The Church, according to this new union, should not proselytize. Nor is the purpose of dialogue to "convert" the "other" to Catholicism. This is pointless, since members of all religions, according to Dupuis, are already part of the "Reign of God". Rather, "the Church" says Fitzgerald, "is there to recognize the holiness that is in other people, the elements of truth, grace and beauty that are in different religions," and "to try to bring about a greater peace and harmony among people of other religions". Perhaps this Congress should have been called, "Fatima Meets the Age of Aquarius"."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1022497/posts
Those were your words, Siobhan.
You're spinning like mad yourself.
There's little question that Fr Zigrang went a bit too far, and is legitimately suspensu a divinis.
Too bad. Fiorino is a bad guy; if Zigrang had merely been obedient, his example would have been outstanding.
Now another several hundred gigabytes of desperate self-justification will emanate from the troglodyte schizzies...
Here pleads AAAB 'I have never violated the rules of this site for 6 years....'
And follows five posts later, insulting a woman poster.
Either your mother or your father should have raised you better.
But then, of course, had they done so, you'd not be defending schizzies...
saying the Tidentine Latin Mass publicly without his permission is disobedience
Most folks understand that JPII is a liberal. SOME of us here understand that, regardless, he IS the Pope.
Hmmmmmmm. Pope. Liberal. So what?
"... nor does a United States court have jurisdiction over the inner workings of the Catholic Church."
That's funny. Really. Wrong, but funny. If you can't afford to buy a clue Deacon, here's one for free - in the US, the Catholic Church operates via a corporate model, corporations are GOVERNED BY state (and sometimes federal) corporate law (as well as other civil and criminal codes). In almost every way, "the inner workings" are governed by US law and therefore, in almost every way, US Courts HAVE jurisdiction. That ones free. For the rest of your ludicrous claims, go buy help.
Let's reduce your argument:
Jurisdiction is ultimately supplied by God. God spoke directly to LeFebvre. LeFebvre acted on God's word and defied the Pope.
Thus LeFebvre is right.
I can agree that jurisdiction is ultimately supplied by God.
All the rest is pure Martin Luther.
No US court has jurisdiction over how the Church treats its priests or due process within the Church.
"but saying the Latin Mass without his permission is disobedience."
When was the Tridentine Mass suppressed? How was that done?
"There is the Real Presence and the Sacrifice of the Mass - ..."
That is also true for the SSPX services and the Orthodox services. Such truth doesn't keep you and others from jumping up and down screaching HERETIC or SCHISMATIC now does it?
Now, here you are, back at it again.
Shall I post your email and contrast it to just your posts this morning?
"No US court has jurisdiction over how the Church treats its priests or due process within the Church."
Wrong (again). Labor laws Deacon. There is another "free" clue for you. Go buy another one. Corporate law governs how corporations operate. If a corporation ignores it's own bylaws, it can be found to be acting "Ultra Vires". That can strip the corporate protection from the Bishop and make him personally liable for civil rights violations of his employees. Why did the Bp. suspend Fr. Z? God knows, we don't, but it is very likely that his medical and pension benefits are partly at issue. Those issues are governed by both Canon Law and Civil Law. Again your assertion fails, totally and completely. Get help.
I thought you were going to change your ways, narses? You sent me a long email, saying you were as much to blame as anyone for all the flaming that goes on around here.Now, here you are, back at it again.
Shall I post your email and contrast it to just your posts this morning?
Please point out what rules of either charity or this forum I have violated Sinkspur. Please do.
I don't attack you personally, I don't use profanity, racism or violence in my posts, so go ahead, point out whatever you want. As for my email, do as you wish, but post whatever you do in conformity to the rules here and in full, not excerpted dishonestly. I assume you grant me reciprocal permission to post your emails?
Please point out where anything I've done on this thread is a FLAME. If you cannot, please ask for your post to be deleted, as it appears you are trying to claim I am engaged in a flame war here.
Name me one instance where a church of any denomination has ever been prosecuted for violating its own internal canons?
Governments do not interfere in the inner-workings of churches, narses.
You are arguing hypotheticals, and I'm arguing reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.