Father Zigrang suspended by Bishop Joseph Fiorenza

Christ or Chaos ^ | 15th July 2004 | Dr Thomas Droleskey

[Notwithstanding]

Perhaps the moderators
can do a better job
by applying the same standard
to sinskspur's
consistently disruptive antics
and personal attacks
as they do to the posts
of those about whom
sinkspur so frequently complains
and has censored

[ultima ratio]

Wrong. This is revisionist nonsense.

[ultima ratio]

Why do you and gbcdoj cut and paste so much--as if that gives what you say some weight? Two can play that game. For every one of your citations, I could name two. The bottom line is whether disobedience to Fiorenza was morally justified or not, given the present crisis in the Church. He felt it was. He could no longer say the N.O. in good conscience. What's really peculiar, though, is the fury aroused in bishops when they confront the ancient Mass. It's like waving a crucifix in front of Dracula.

[BlackElk]

LOI: If you are going to mention me, convention requires that you ping me. I regularly point out that Marcel Lefebvre is dead because be apparently died unrepentant which means he has run out of time to recant and repent and do penance for his apostasy, his disobedience, his massacre of his freely taken vows of obedience, his commitment to JP II NOT to consecrate the four Econe excommunicatees and to humbly submit to the authority of the Supreme Pontiff. If that was all, I would not mention it repeatedly but many who partake in most of those crimes of Marcel Lefebvre and ratify the rest are still alive and can still repent and still seek forgiveness and still recant and reject these evils and the scandals they have produced.

Paul VI put me in the frame of mind that the schismatics regularly display. I thank God for one sensible Catholic who persuaded me not to leave Catholicism for the Eastern Orthodox Church. Lefebvrism was entirely too obvious and obviously a new and less worthy schism than Eastern Orthodoxy. I suffered through the papacy of Paul VI and John XXIII before him. They are long since dead and have received the judgment of God (Who alone may judge them as can no one on earth) whatever it may have been. I rejoice that God has sent us JP II.

Fr. Zigrang has apparently been driven over the edge by Bishop Fiorenza. Fr. Zigrang is probably not the first pries to have been driven over the edge by Fiorenza. Nonetheless, Fr. Zigrang is incardinated in Fiorenza's diocese and has no more business spitting upon the authority of his diocesan ordinary (even patheticos such as Fiorenza) than does another "traditionalist" icon: Fr. Gruner who never saw an order he would not violate as to where and how he is to practice his priesthood. We are a Church. We are THE Church. We are NOT an anarchy.

[Religion Moderator]

Perhaps you could do a better job of reading (see #175). Knock it off. Now.

[ultima ratio]

Disobedience is obligatory if the faith is involved. There can be no compromise. No one can be complicit in destroying the Church.

[BlackElk]

That is precisely why actual Catholics reject Lefebvre, his scandal, his crimes and his legacy.

[ultima ratio]

The Holy See is no more than the Vatican bureaucracy--which no longer is fully Catholic. That is just the truth. Many of its most important officials are cardinals and archbishops who are openly apostate, for instance. This means only some are truly Catholic and orthodox, while some are not. The Pope presides over both.

On the other hand, the true Church exists among those who practice the true faith. This is where the SSPX and other traditionalists come in--in fact, it is comprised of the entire traditionalist movement. They adhere to the doctrines and practices of the preconciliar Church and renounce the heresies that have engulfed the conciliar apparatus.

[BlackElk]

Fiorenza may well be LESS of a Catholic than Ian Paisley but he is a bishop. In this instance, like the twice-daily experience of a stopped clock, Fiorenza just happens to be right in suspending a disobedient priest who rejects the authority of his diocesan ordinary.

If Fellay's excommunication is ever lifted and he becomes a diocesan ordinary (which, absent repentance and penance, may God forbid) of the actual Roman Catholic Church, will you expect his priests to obey him? Will it depend on his intentions? Does the end justify the means?

[Bellarmine]

All of these are condemned propositions right?

[ultima ratio]

The ultimate authority is divine. Earthly authority is limited to protecting the deposit of faith, not creating a new religion. The fierce in-fighting on this site on these matters shows the line is being drawn between two religions, both claiming to be Catholic. One side is led by a Pontiff in love with novelties who disdains the teachings of his predecessors, the other adheres to the practices and teachings of popes, councils and saints that have been transmitted over a span of two thousand years. The two religions are irreconcilable. Only one is the true religion.

[BlackElk]

That 300 diocesan priests are said to be studying with the schism. It is the absolute last place to study Canon Law as is evident by its execrable track record. Latin is a simple enough language not to require instruction, much less at the hands of the schism. Likewise, the Tridentine liturgy is easily learned from Catholic sources. If SSPX simply claims that 300 diocesan priests are being subverted by them, one should be skeptical in the absence of a public roster. Since such participation would be at least some evidence of adherence to the schism, the diocesan ordinaries should investigate and react accordingly if there is more evidence.

[Grey Ghost II]

Does the end justify the means?

In this case, yes. Eternal salvation is at stake here. Blind obedience to a corrupt, non-Catholic, pedophile supporter bishop is not likely to get one to Heaven.

[ultima ratio]

More nonsense about a holy man who single-handedly resisted a Pontiff determined to wreck the Church. The Archbishop did not break any vows of obedience by doing so, since such vows are not absolute but depend on the legitimacy of the papal command. In this case, the command not to consecrate was intended to finally and forever starve the ancient Mass of traditional priests. Lefebvre was obliged to disobey to save the Traditional Faith.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Yes, they do. They answer them positively.

And dogmatically and infallibily. They are from the Syllabus of Errors promulgated by Bl. Pius IX.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

It recently "regularized" the status of Campos and fully accepted the previous Campos assumptions of supplied jurisdiction.

I would argue that canonically the regularization of Campos back validated the acts (confessions and marriages that were formerly invalid becuase they were done in contradiction to Church law), not that the acts were valid from the beginning. That is the power of the keys of Peter.

[BlackElk]

So you say. So Marcel said. Neither of you exercises authority. What did the pope say????

[ultima ratio]

There is such a thing as ecclesiastical abuse of power. All ordinaries are obliged to command legitimately. They may not command what would harm the faith or the Church or what would be detrimental to the salvation of souls. Many do just this. When they do, they must be disobeyed.